Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Scarborough) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES (RETURNS).

STATISTICS.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour what is the reason for the small percentage of Returns furnished by employers in certain industries and published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I assume that the hon. Member refers to the monthly returns which are voluntarily supplied by employers in certain industries, giving particulars as to the numbers of workpeople in their employment and as to the number of days worked or amount of wages paid. Comprehensive statistics of unemployment in these and other industries are already published in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette," and the object of the returns referred to is to supplement these statistics by particulars indicating the changes in the state of employment at a number of representative works from which comparable information can regularly be obtained. It is not necessary for this purpose that returns should be obtained from

all employers, and application is accordingly made by the Department only to a selection of employers who have been supplying returns over a long period.

Mr. Smith: Is it not a fact that if a larger number of employers provided the Minister with these returns, a far more accurate picture could be obtained of the general industrial position?

Mr. Brown: We think that, on the whole, we have a representative survey. There are one or two cases which require looking into, but I cannot ask the statistics department of my own Ministry, or indeed business organisations, to undertake this work on the scale suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ASSISTANCE.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Labour the average increase paid to applicants by the Unemployment Assistance Board since the circular was issued giving the board's officers discretion to take into consideration the increased cost of living; and the average increase allowed in the Stoke area of the Hanley administrative district?

Mr. E. Brown: On 17th January last the average addition to current assessments on account of the special circumstances dealt with in the board's circular, in cases in which such additions were made, was about 2s. both in the country generally and in the board's administrative area of Stoke.

Mr. T. Smith: Can the Minister assure us that this 2s. is not the maximum?

Mr. Brown: Is is an average over the whole country.

Mr. Lawson: The average for each applicant?

Mr. Brown: The average per applicant.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that men with four children who received the 5s. a week bonus for babies recently given to workers at Pilkington's glass manufactory, St. Helens, Lancashire, and who are working part time at that factory, have had the whole of their 12s. children allowance deducted from their unemployment pay; under what authority this deduction was made; and what action he proposes to take about the matter?

Mr. Brown: I have made inquiry and find that in two such cases payment of the benefit allowance for children was suspended for a few days pending consideration of its legality. Payment has now been made.

Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not the first or second case of this kind; does he not remember the case which I brought to his notice about a fortnight ago, and why is it that the responsible officials in cases of this character do not make themselves acquainted with the legal position?

Mr. Brown: I think there were only two or three cases.

Mr. A. Jenkins: Are we to understand that in all such cases instructions are now issued to Employment Exchange officials asking them to make no reductions in cases where employers make grants of this kind?

Mr. Brown: That was done.

Mr. George Hall: asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons in the Aberdare area who, owing to the operation of the means test, are not entitled to any allowance but who are receiving a grant such as dignity money under paragraph 39 of the Unemployment Assistance Board's Explanatory Memorandum, 1936?

Mr. Brown: I regret that this information is not available. I would remind the hon. Member that the Board cannot grant allowances to persons who are not entitled to them, and that in granting allowances in the circumstances indicated in paragraph 39 of the White Paper they do so by a proper exercise of their discretion under the Regulations.

Mr. Hall: Cannot the Minister get this information, and has he made any representations to the Board about giving a more generous interpretation to this paragraph of the regulations, especially in view of the statement which he made when introducing the regulations?

Mr. Brown: I understand that the Board could get this information only by a special investigation. I will call their attention to the point.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Labour whether the whole of the rebate of rent for children allowed by local

authorities is taken into account when assessing for transitional unemployment benefit?

Mr. Brown: Unemployment allowances are normally adjusted for rent, by reference to the actual rent paid, in the light of recommendations of local advisory committees. Under these recommendations there is frequently a margin within which rent rebates may be granted without affecting the amount of the allowance payable. The rebate schemes, however, vary greatly in character and where necessary the Board's officers discuss their detailed application in any area with the local authority concerned. If the hon. Member has any special case in mind, perhaps he will let me have further particulars.

Mr. Batey: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in December, 1937, there were 22,853 able-bodied unemployed persons receiving Poor Law relief in England and Wales; and whether he will take steps to transfer these persons to the Unemployment Assistance Board?

Mr. Brown: I am not prepared to introduce the legislation which would be necessary for this purpose.

Mr. Batey: Does the Minister consider it fair that so many unemployed people should come under the Poor Law, and was not the House given to understand that they would be taken over by the Unemployment Assistance Board?

Mr. Brown: This is merely keeping within the law.

Mr. Batey: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the reduction in the estimate of expenditure for the Unemployment Assistance Board, he will take steps to abolish the means test?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir.

Mr. Batey: Seeing that the expenditure of the Unemployment Assistance Board has been reduced so much, does the Minister not consider that the time has come when this abominable system should be abolished?

Mr. Brown: I do not agree. It seems to work very well.

HORNCHURCH (EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE).

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the hardship


and delay caused to unemployed persons in the Hornchurch district of Essex by the fact that they are obliged to report at the Romford Employment Exchange, he will take steps to establish an Employment Exchange for the rapidly increasing population in Hornchurch?

Mr. E. Brown: I have this matter under consideration.

EXPECTANT MOTHERS.

Mr. Dingle Foot: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the position of women who are within a few weeks of childbirth and who, being unemployed, are under the necessity of attending at the Employment Exchange to draw standard benefit or unemployment allowances; whether he is aware that, although such women are usually held to be capable of work, their chances of obtaining employment are very small; and whether he will consider, in collaboration with the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, the advisability of so amending the law that women within a month of childbirth shall be maintained from National Health Insurance funds?

Mr. E. Brown: I have received representations from time to time upon this subject but the proposal which the hon. Member makes is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland rather than for me.

Mr. Foot: Is not the question directed to whether the right hon. Gentleman should consult with the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman will understand that the responsibility for any new proposals would be theirs, and that representations must be made, first of all, to them.

Sir Percy Harris: Is not the point at issue the necessity for these women attending the Employment Exchanges?

Mr. Brown: The issue really is whether these women can be maintained from National Health Insurance funds.

Mr. T. Johnston: In view of the importance of this matter to large numbers of pregnant women in the industrial areas, will the right hon. Gentleman not consult

with the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland as to the best way of dealing with it?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman who put down the question will, first of all, approach my right hon. Friends, and if so I shall be quite willing to enter into any discussions that there may be on the matter.

Mr. Foot: May we take it that we shall have the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy and assistance in any representations which we make to the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State?

Mr. Brown: I must first know what they are.

LANCASHIRE.

Mr. Parkinson: asked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken to relieve unemployment in South-west Lancashire and in other Lancashire districts where unemployment is heavy?

Mr. E. Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to Sections 5 and 6 of the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, and to the answers given to the hon. Members for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) and Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on 10th and 17th February respectively. I would also remind the hon. Member that Lancashire is sharing to a very considerable extent in the employment afforded by the Defence programme, and that three Government factories, together with four agency factories, have been or are being erected in the county. This is in addition to the large number of contracts which have been placed direct with Lancashire firms.

EX-SERVICE MEN.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. John Gowley, an ex-service man, of 29, Long Row, Shiney Row, county Durham, who, having been unemployed for 5½ years, obtained work at a colliery on 30th January, worked a full week, and was then dismissed without notice, not because his work was unsatisfactory, but because he had been wounded in the right hand for which he was in receipt of a pension; and whether the manager of the local Employment Exchange has made, or will make, further inquiries into this case, with a view to getting this ex-service man work suitable for his condition?

Mr. E. Brown: Inquiries are being made, and I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider introducing a scheme with the object of providing work for ex-service men suffering from slight disabilities, as employers of labour will not have these men unless they are 100 per cent. fit?

Mr. Brown: We do give attention to these cases, and I am having this case specially looked into.

MONMOUTHSHIRE.

Mr. Daggar: asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons transferred from the Employment Exchanges at Crumlin, Abertillery, and Blaina, and the number of unemployed persons who have secured employment outside the area covered by these Exchanges, for each year 1926 to 1937?

Mr. E. Brown: I am having the available figures extracted and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

STATUTORY COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has yet received the report of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee upon the financial condition of the Unemployment Fund; when the report will be published; and whether he can make a statement upon the action which he proposes to take upon any recommendations in the report?

Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir. The Committee's reports on the General and Agricultural Accounts of the Unemployment Fund have been laid and copies will be available to members at seven o'clock to-day. As regards the General Account, the Committee recommend by a majority that there should be an increase from 9s. to 10s. in the weekly rate of benefit in respect of wives and other adult dependants, and an increase in the maximum period of benefit to which contributors with good insurance records are entitled. The cost is estimated at £1,500,000 per annum, and is to be covered in part through repayment of £20,000,000 of debt out of reserves.

As regards the Agricultural Account, the Committee recommend that the waiting period should be reduced from six to three days, that the joint weekly rate of contributions in respect of contributors aged 18 and upwards should be reduced by ½d. for each party, that the weekly rate of benefit for young men between the ages of 18 and 21 should be increased from 10s. 6d. to 12s., and that the condition requiring payment of ten contributions as a requalification for benefit should be abolished except where the applicant has drawn the maximum period of 300 days of benefit in the year. The cost is estimated at £222,500 per annum. I propose, subject to Parliamentary approval, to give effect to these recommendations.

Mr. Lawson: While appreciating the advance, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the total amount of the balance now in the fund at his disposal and what is the amount that it has been decided to pay off the debt? Will not the balance allow of a larger rise?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will await the report. The amount to be applied to repayment of debt is £20,000,000. The remainder of the balance is a prudent reserve against any bad times that may come. There is also a surplus of about £7,500,000 which will help to finance these and other improvements over a cycle of eight years.

Mr. Lawson: Are we to take it that it has actually been decided to take £20,000,000 in repayment of debt?

Mr. Brown: That is so.

Mr. Lawson: Would not that make it possible to give higher advances?

Mr. Brown: No; £20,000,000 means £500,000 a year.

COTTON INDUSTRY WORKERS.

Mr. Tomlinson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to state whether he can do anything to assist the workers in the manufacturing section of the cotton industry in Lancashire who are suffering from underemployment as distinct from unemployment?

Mr. E. Brown: As I told the hon. Member last week, I should like to know what is in his mind. Perhaps he will have a talk with me.

Mr. Tomlinson: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the representations made to him on this subject two years ago? He knows quite well what is in my mind in asking this question.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member knows as well as I do that this question may mean half a dozen different things. I should very much like to have a serious talk with him about it.

SEASONAL WORKERS, GLASGOW.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons defined as seasonal workers who failed to qualify for unemployment benefit in Glasgow for the years 1936 and 1937, respectively?

Mr. E. Brown: I am having the available figures extracted, and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

Mr. Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the point of view that these seasonal workers, by undertaking employment, show a desire for permanent employment, and will he consider a revision of the regulations with a view to modifying them?

Mr. Brown: We have already reviewed them and modified them since I have been Minister of Labour, and I know of no reason for going further at the moment.

Mr. Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the point that many of these people, by undertaking seasonal employment, show their desire for work?

Mr. Brown: Since the Anomalies Act was passed in 1931 there are a large number of seasonal workers who have never even been back to the exchange to register

MINISTER'S TOUR.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Minister of Labour whether, as a result of his recent tour of various unemployed centres, he has formulated new schemes to deal with unemployment; and has he any statement to make?

Mr. E. Brown: I have at present nothing to add to the answer which I gave on 17th February to a similar question put by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths).

Mr. Davidson: Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest when we can place a question on the Paper and receive an adequate answer?

Mr. Brown: That is a matter for discussion on the Estimates, and that remains with the hon. Gentleman's Leader.

Oral Answers to Questions — WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Labour what steps have been taken by the Governments who were parties to the Washington Hours Convention Act to ratify the same; and will he give particulars of the present position and the conditions specified by the various Governments?

Mr. E. Brown: I assume the hon. Member refers to the Convention on Hours of Work in Industry which was adopted by the first International Labour Conference at Washington in 1919. This Convention has been ratified by 18 countries and conditionally ratified by four countries. I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list showing the names of these countries and the conditions, if any, which they have specified.

Mr. Day: Will the Minister ascertain what are the conditions on which Germany will agree to ratification?

Following is the list:

Ratified: Argentine, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominica, Greece, India, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Nicaragua, Portugal, Rumania, Spain, Uruguay.

Conditionally Ratified: Austria (only to be put into force when it has also been ratified by the European States of chief industrial importance which are Members of the International Labour Organisation and also by the States bordering on Austria with which Austria has economic relations); France (only to have effect when also ratified by Germany and by Great Britain); Italy (to date from the day when the Convention has also been ratified by Germany, Belgium, France, Great Britain and Switzerland); Latvia (to come into force when also ratified by three of the States of chief industrial importance within the meaning of Article 393 of the Treaty of Versailles).

Oral Answers to Questions — CATERING TRADE (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the low wages and long hours of labour prevalent in the catering trade, the Minister will consider the advisability of setting up a trade board to regulate the conditions of employment in that trade?

Mr. E. Brown: I have no recent information concerning conditions in this trade. If the hon. Member will furnish me with any information in his possession I shall be glad to give it consideration.

Mr. Leslie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the report of the special committee which was set up to consider the case and the recommendation which was made then for the establishment of a trade board?

Mr. Brown: That was in 1913, and I have not any recent information.

Mr. Rhys Davies: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is now dealing with conditions of employment in the retail distributive trades, and also that he has been good enough to promise an inquiry into the conditions of employment in the licensed trade, will he not consider making some inquiry into the catering trade at the same time?

Mr. Brown: These things keep me fairly busy, and the hon. Member must not seek to place too many burdens on my shoulders.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHOP WORKERS (CONDITIONS).

Captain Plugge: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered a report on wages, hours, and conditions of shop workers submitted to him from a joint committee of employers' organisations and trades' unions; whether he is satisfied that this report also represents the views of small individual shopkeepers; and, if not, whether he will do his best to obtain them?

Mr. E. Brown: I received the report only a few days ago and, therefore, I am not yet in a position to make any observations upon it. According to my information the employers' organisations concerned are representative of all classes of employers.

Captain Plugge: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman which organisations are considered representative of the views of the "one-assistant" shopkeeper?

Mr. Brown: When I had my first discussion nearly two years ago on this matter there was a very large and representative gathering, and every point of view has been represented on the committee which has been engaged on this subject for 18 months.

Mr. Mabane: Is it not a fact that every organisation representative of the small shopkeepers of the type described in the question was fully represented at that conference?

Oral Answers to Questions — GLASGOW EXHIBITION (MINISTRY OF LABOUR PAVILION).

Mr. Davidson: asked the Minister of Labour whether his Department will be represented at the Glasgow Empire Exhibition; and, if so, in what manner?

Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir. A small pavilion is being set up in the grounds of the exhibition at which various aspects of the Ministry's work will be illustrated and facilities for giving information to inquirers will be available. It is hoped, also, that certain films of the Ministry's work will be shown in the exhibition's film theatre.

Mr. Davidson: Does this mean that within this Pavilion there will be a model of an employment exchange with notices of the regulations, penalties and scales of benefit, and will the lectures include instruction to foreigners on how to keep and feed a child on 3s. a week?

Mr. Brown: The work of the Ministry will be illustrated there. The hon. Gentleman is doing his constituents no good service by pretending that we have not the finest service in the world.

Mr. Maxton: Is the right hon. Gentleman's Department represented at the strike of workers that is now taking place at the Exhibition?

Mr. Brown: We are always in touch.

Mr. Davidson: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman made an assertion that in my question I was trying to injure my constituents, and I want to ask whether his assertion is proved


by the recruiting figures and the number of physical defectives?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — RACECOURSE BETTING CONTROL BOARD.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that since the establishment of the Racecourse Betting Control Board £220,627 has been allotted by the Board to purposes connected with the sport of horse-racing, and only £19,650 to purposes conducive to improvements of the breeds of horses; and on what grounds such a small allocation to horse-breeding is justified?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I am assured by the Board that they have made every effort to allocate the available funds to the various objects specified in the Act in the manner which in their judgment is most advantageous. The amount of money which can advantageously be allocated in the form of direct grants for improving the breed of horses is limited, but it must be remembered that sums allotted for the improvement of horse racing do operate, either directly or indirectly, for the benefit of horse breeding. In particular, some 35 per cent. of the grants made by the Board for purposes connected with horse racing have been allotted to the provision of increased stake money, and this is a direct encouragement to thoroughbred horse breeding, on which the maintenance of the standard of other horse breeding largely depends.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Dr. Haden Guest: asked the Home Secretary whether he will arrange for statutory rules and orders, circulars, handbooks, and other printed documents issued by his Department in connection with air-raid precautions to be available in the Vote Office for Members of this House?

Mr. Lloyd: A complete set of all documents published by the Stationery Office in connection with air-raid precautions has been placed in the Library of the House for the convenience of Members.

Copies of the handbook which is being issued shortly to the air-raid personnel of local authorities will be supplied specially to the Vote Office. Further documents will be added as they are published and Members requiring such publications may obtain them in accordance with the usual practice on application to the Controller of the Stationery Office, through the Vote Office.

Mr. Thorne: Will they be obtainable with the pink form?

Mr. Lloyd: With the green demand.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Mervyn Manningham-Buller: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the proved value in Barcelona of underground air-raid shelters, he has considered the feasibility of constructing such shelters under the squares and open spaces in London and elsewhere, and reducing the cost of such shelters by utilising them normally for parking motor cars?

Mr. Lloyd: Under the Act the duty of making arrangements for the provision of such shelters for the protection of the public as may be necessary rests upon the local authorities. Air-raid shelters specially constructed for this purpose would not necessarily be suitable as garages, though underground garages could, in certain circumstances, afford protection in air raids, and in considering any proposals for the construction of underground garages local authorities will doubtless keep in mind the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Can the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the Home Office have formed any opinion as to the desirability of the construction of shelters for the public?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will be issuing a circular in regard to that as affecting local authorities very shortly.

Major Mills: asked the Home Secretary whether he considers the declaration made by special constables under the Special Constables Acts, 1831, 1914, and 1932, is appropriate for members of the observers corps whose duties involve watching for hostile aircraft; and whether he has ascertained, or will ascertain, the views of the chief constables of counties and county


boroughs as to the desirability of transferring all responsibility for this corps to the Royal Air Force under whom they come for operational purposes?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): As was stated in a reply to a similar question given by the Under-Secretary of State for Air on 9th February, experience over a number of years has shown that the status of special constables provides a satisfactory method of meeting the requirements of the Observer Corps. Having regard to the great national importance of the duties of these men, I do not consider that this status, or the declaration which the men are required to make, is inappropriate. I have recently obtained the views of representative chief constables on the matter, and though there was some divergence of opinion, my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for Air and I are satisfied that there is no ground for altering the present arrangements.

Major Mills: Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that the vast majority of the members of this corps would much prefer such a transfer?

Sir S. Hoare: My information does not confirm that view.

Mr. Price: asked the Home Secretary the number of local authorities who are in process of training air-raid wardens in their duties?

Mr. Lloyd: As the hon. Member is no doubt aware the organisation of services of air-raid wardens is one of the duties put upon local authorities by the Act. While some authorities have made more progress than others, I am informed that generally the organisation of this work is in hand in practically all areas.

Mr. Price: Has the hon. Member any information as to the number of those who are in training as air wardens?

Mr. Lloyd: We shall have more information when the schemes are submitted by the local authorities.

Mr. George Griffiths: asked the Home Secretary what preparations the West Riding County Council have made in connection with the burning pit stacks in the event of an air raid?

Mr. Lloyd: I am not aware of any preparations by the West Riding County Council, but as my right hon. Friend stated in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) last Monday, the problems involved by these burning heaps in time of war are under examination.

Mr. Griffiths: Up to now, has the Home Secretary had no information whether they will decide either to cover or to put out these pit stacks? Is the Under-Secretary aware that there are stacks burning to-day which are as big as this Chamber and that at night they can be seen for 200 miles? An aeroplane in Germany can almost see them. Will the Home Office do something to get them put out?

Mr. Lloyd: It will be for the West Riding County Council, when they submit their scheme, to consider whether any provision ought to be included in it for dealing with this matter. I will ask our regional inspector to be specially ready to assist them with technical information.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHOPS ACTS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider some amendment to the Shops Act, 1934, in view of the present anomalies whereby it is possible on the half-day closing to purchase from chemists a tooth brush and tooth paste, but not a shaving brush and safety razor, and in view of the fact that many retailers are unable to interpret the Act in numerous instances similar to the one given?

Sir S. Hoare: Under the Shops Act, 1912, shops are required to close for a weekly half-holiday, but various exemptions are provided including an exemption for the sale of medicines and medical and surgical appliances. My hon. Friend will appreciate that in legislation of this character some special exceptions must of necessity be provided, and that where there are exceptions there must always be border-line cases. I do not see how such cases are to be avoided by any amendment of the law, short of abolishing the exemptions altogether.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. Friend realise that it is impossible to interpret this Act, and that the numerous


cases throughout the country surely demand a good deal more common sense in the Act?

Sir S. Hoare: I am afraid that I cannot admit my hon. Friend's assumptions.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Home Secretary whether as, since the passing of the Shops Act, 1912, the banks in the city now close on Saturdays at 12 noon instead of at 1 p.m., and as the city shops need not therefore remain open until 1.30 p.m. in order to allow bank clerks to do their shopping, he will consider amending the Act to enable these shops to close at 1 p.m.?

Sir S. Hoare: The Shops Act, 1912, requires all shops to close not later than one o'clock on one day in every week, but a local authority may in certain circumstances by order exempt any class of shops from this requirement, either altogether or by fixing a later hour not later than two o'clock. I understand that in the City of London one or two classes of shops have been exempted up to 1.30 p.m., but that most shops have been exempted altogether from this requirement, though in practice they mostly close at 1.30 p.m. on Saturdays. If action is to be taken in the direction desired by my hon. Friend, this can be done under the existing law, either by voluntary arrangement on the part of the occupiers of the shops concerned, or alternatively by revocation of the orders of exemption now in force if a majority of the occupiers are in favour of that course.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Could not these bank clerks do their shopping on some other day than Saturday?

Oral Answers to Questions — BOYS ON PROBATION.

Mr. James Hall: asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the advisability of terminating the system of employing on nightwork boys of 16 years of age who have been placed on probation with a condition of residence in a hostel?

Sir S. Hoare: I am not aware of any system of placing boys from probation hostels in employment involving night-work, and I believe much care is taken to find suitabe work for probationers. If the hon. Member has in mind some particular case and will send me particulars, I will consider them.

Mr. Hall: I shall be pleased to supply particulars to the right hon. Gentleman of night work being given to boys under those conditions.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTORISTS (MANSLAUGHTER SENTENCES).

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Home Secretary whether, in connection with the proposals for penal reform, he will consider the amendment of the existing law as it applies to motor car drivers and other drivers convicted of manslaughter whereby sentence of imprisonment may be imposed on such offenders, with a view to substituting for such sentence the penalty of a heavy fine and permanent loss of driving licence, bearing in mind that the offenders, though admittedly a danger to the public, are not criminally-minded and should not be classed as, and with, criminals?

Sir S. Hoare: Any amendment of the law on the lines suggested would be more appropriate in a Bill amending the Road Traffic Acts, but it must not be taken that I assent to the premises contained in my hon. Friend's question.

PROPOSED SEVERN BRIDGE.

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to make a statement with reference to the construction of a bridge over the Severn River?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this matter. Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to communicate with him when I am able to do so.

Mr. Jenkins: Can the Minister say when he will be in a position to make a statement on this matter, which is of such great importance to South Wales?

Mr. Burgin: I am aware of the importance of the matter, and I am doing what I can to expedite a decision.

CANALS.

Commander Marsden: asked the Minister of Transport whether anything has yet been done to implement the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Transport of 1931, that he should take steps to set up public trusts which would


acquire such canals as he considers it would be in the national interest to preserve and improve?

Mr. Burgin: No, Sir. I have no powers under which I could take the action proposed. My hon. and gallant Friend will be aware that since 1930 considerable improvements have been made in certain of the more important waterways.

BIRMINGHAM-WOLVERHAMPTON ROAD (REPAIR).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Transport what steps are now being taken for the repair of the Birmingham-Wolverhampton new road; how many local authorities are involved in the placing of contracts; and whether he will endeavour to arrange for the more effective method of one contract being placed for the whole road?

Mr. Burgin: The county councils of Stafford and Worcester, as my agents, are maintaining these lengths of trunk road. They are employing direct labour so that the question of contracts does not arise. The sections within the three county boroughs are not trunk roads, and I have no power to make grants for their maintenance, which is covered by the block grants to those authorities.

Mr. Mander: In view of the importance of encouraging transport, and, indeed, the flow of ideas, between Wolverhampton and Birmingham, will the right horn. Gentleman give this matter the most rapid attention he can?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE AND COUNTY COURTS.

Sir William Jenkins: asked the Home Secretary the amounts received in fines from police court proceedings in 1936 and 1937, respectively, indicating the amounts received by the Treasury and the amounts received by the police authority, and giving separately the amount the Treasury receives from road fines, and the amount allowed to the police authority for England and Wales, respectively?

Sir S. Hoare: As the answer includes a number of figures I will, with the hon. Members's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The amounts of the fines imposed by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction received by the Exchequer in the years 1936 and

1937 were £367,879 15s. 1d. and £379,190 10s. 4d., respectively. These sums include £356,636 19s. 4d. and £367,750 14s. 7d., respectively, in respect of fines imposed under the Roads and Road Traffic Acts. I regret I have no information as to the amount of the fines received by the local or police authorities

Sir W. Jenkins: asked the Home Secretary what grant is made to police authorities in England and Wales towards the salaries paid to clerks to justices and their staff; what grants are paid for the upkeep of the police courts; and what grant is given towards county courts?

Sir S. Hoare: No Exchequer grant is payable in respect of the salaries of clerks to justices. As regards the second and third parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to his question on 28th February.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Home Secretary whether he will include in the terms of reference to the Departmental Committee on conditions of service of clerks to justices the question of establishing a uniform procedure of issuing receipts for moneys paid into court?

Sir S. Hoare: The failure of some clerks to adopt proper systems of giving receipts is one amongst several questionable economies which have resulted from the statutory provision that the clerk shall be paid an inclusive sum to cover both his expenses and his personal remuneration, with the consequence that the more he spends on clerical assistance, postage, etc., the less may be his personal remuneration. To review this system of payment will be one of the functions of the proposed committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — YOUNG PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Home Secretary (1) whether he will publish the results of his inquiries from local elementary education authorities as to the present amount and nature of the employment of school children in their areas;
(2) whether he will publish the results of his questionnaire to councils of counties and county boroughs as to the number of young persons engaged or employed in street trading and the nature of the employment?

Sir S. Hoare: When all the returns are received and summarised I shall certainly consider the best method of making the information available to the public.

Oral Answers to Questions — JURY SERVICE.

Captain Plugge: asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider exempting from jury service small business men working on their own account, since such men have to suspend work during their jury service and thus receive no payment of any kind?

Sir S. Hoare: Legislation would be required to give effect to this suggestion, and I am not in a position to give any promise of legislation on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN POLICE.

CRIME INQUIRIES, GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary particulars of the number of Metropolitan officers who have been actively engaged during the previous weeks on inquiries into the murder of Captain Butt; and upon which authority will fall the cost for the use of the police officers so engaged?

Sir S. Hoare: Chief Constables of the county and borough police forces are entitled to enlist the aid of Scotland Yard detectives in the investigation of serious alleged crimes. One chief inspector of the Criminal Investigation Department and one sergeant of the Metropolitan Police Force have been engaged in assisting the Gloucestershire Constabulary in the case referred to, and the cost of their services will be borne by the Metropolitan Police Fund.

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that those two officers were also engaged in dragging operations?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir, not without notice.

TRAINING.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Home Secretary the number of men who have been trained in the Metropolitan police schools and colleges during the five years ended 31st March, 1937; and how many of these are now serving in the Metropolitan Police Force?

Sir S. Hoare: During the five years ended on 31st March, 1937, 3,628 candidates were trained in the Metropolitan Police Training School, of whom 2,883 are now serving in the Metropolitan Police Force. Up to the same date, 122 men had completed their training in the Metropolitan Police College, which opened in May, 1934. One hundred and twelve of these men are now serving in the Metropolitan Police Force.

Mr. Strauss: Would the Home Secretary explain why so many of the people who are trained in this college are not serving in the Metropolitan Police, and whether they have left in dissatisfaction?

Sir S. Hoare: The hon. Member had better put that question down, when I will give him the information.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEICESTER PRISON (ELECTRIC LIGHT).

Mr. Everard: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that electric light has been installed in the chapel of Leicester prison by the generosity of the visiting justices, he will now arrange for the remainder of the prison premises to be lighted with electric light forthwith?

Sir S. Hoare: Electric light is being installed in His Majesty's prisons in accordance with a general programme, and it is hoped that the necessary work will be started at Leicester prison towards the end of the coming financial year.

Mr. Thurtle: Can the Home Secretary say why the chapel was the first place chosen for electric lighting?

Oral Answers to Questions — PENTONVILLE PRISON (STOKERS' WAGES).

Mr. Montague: asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider revising the scale of wages for stokers at Pentonville prison in view of the fact that in some cases the wives of these men have to go out to work to supplement the wage of £2 8s. weekly so that high rents may be paid?

Sir S. Hoare: The present rate of wages for these employés is 53s. 6d. a week, less statutory deductions of 1s. 7d. a week. The Prison Commissioners have


under consideration representations regarding the rates of pay of stokers, but they propose to defer any decision on this question until the claim of prison officers for a revised scale of pay, which is about to be submitted to arbitration, has been disposed of.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIFT ACCIDENT, FOLKESTONE.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary the cause of the lift accident at the Grand Hotel, Folkestone, on Saturday, when a boy, aged 17, was found dead in the well of the lift where he was employed?

Sir S. Hoare: I have obtained a report on the inquest. The verdict was accidental death; there was no direct evidence as to the cause of the accident and in the circumstances I should prefer not to express any opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — FASCIST MEETING, STRATFORD.

Mr. Groves: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the protests and petitions from the residents of and around Rosher Road, Stratford, a meeting of Fascists was there held on Sunday morning, 27th February, and that, as a result of the consequent disorder, four onlookers were arrested; whether he is informed through the uniformed policeman, who took shorthand notes of the proceedings, that two Fascist speakers repeatedly used insulting language to the audience; whether he will take the necessary steps to prosecute the speakers for action calculated to cause a breach of the peace; and whether, in view of the fact that the area is a thickly populated industrial area, and many workers engaged on nightly duty need daytime rest, he will ensure that no more such meetings are held there?

Sir S. Hoare: I have made inquiries and am informed that four persons who were hostile to this meeting were arrested and charged with using insulting words and behaviour, but so far as the police were able to hear the speakers amid much interruption they heard nothing to warrant the institution of proceedings against them. As the hon. Member knows, the police have no power to prohibit lawful meetings, and the fact that a meeting in a particular district may be

unwelcome to the inhabitants of that district does not make it unlawful.

Mr. Groves: Can the Home Secretary say why the chief inspector of the neighbourhood climbed on to the back of the van from which these speakers were addressing the audience and warned one of them in respect of his conduct? Why did the inspector take such action if he heard nothing to warrant interference? In view of the fact that I was there, may I further ask whether it is not a fact that a policeman took a full shorthand note, and whether, following a warning from the inspector, one of the Fascists referred to the audience as "scum" and another referred to them as "hook-nosed unmentionables"? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] It may be a speech, but this is a very serious matter, and I want to know whether the Home Secretary will have the shorthand notes presented to him in longhand and let me, as the Member for the division, peruse them with him, as I was present and know that insulting behaviour took place?

Sir S. Hoare: I have given the House the information at my disposal, and if the hon. Member has any further information I hope he will communicate it to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS ("CAT" SENTENCES).

Mr. Pearson: asked the Home Secretary whether the men sentenced for the Mayfair jewel robbery have undergone any part of the sentence of a varying number of strokes of the cat?

Sir S. Hoare: I am informed that the full sentences of the court were carried out on the 1st instant.

Sir Gifford Fox: Does not my right hon. Friend think this would be a good punishment for all those convicted of sabotage or giving away official secrets?

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the sadistic effect of these sentences on a section of the public, and in view of that and the grave consequences to all men who are sentenced to this form of punishment, will he seriously consider bringing such form of punishment to an end?

Sir S. Hoare: The hon. Gentleman has raised a much wider question, and I could not answer it in the form of a supplementary answer.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Does not my right hon. Friend deplore the undue publicity given to the execution of these sentences by a section of the Press and by questions in Parliament? Has there been any leakage of information from the prison, and, if so, will he take action?

Sir S. Hoare: I have answered the question on the Paper, and perhaps my hon. Friend would like to put down another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN POLICY.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether the French Government have been consulted by the British Government, and have agreed with their view, that tinder existing conditions the collective system of the League of Nations cannot be considered as operative as regards Article 16 of the Covenant; and whether France has been consulted, and agreed to negotiations between Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy, excluding Russia, for a general European settlement?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): If the hon. Member will look at the reports of the statements I made in the House on 21st and 22nd February, he will find a full expression of my views on the subjects to which he refers. I could not accept in all respects the interpretation which he places upon my remarks. As regards the attitude of the French Government, the hon. Member will no doubt have been able to inform himself from the reports of the proceedings of the recent debate in the French Chamber. With regard to the second part of the question, there is no proposal at present, so far as I am aware, of the kind to which the hon. Member refers. But I need hardly repeat what has already been made plain on more than one occasion that His Majesty's Government intend, as in the past, to remain in close consultation with the French Government on all matters of common concern to the two Governments.

Oral Answers to Questions — CASUAL WARDS GLAMORGAN.

Mr. Hopkin: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the

distances between casual wards in the rural parts of Wales are unreasonably long, and whether he will take steps to see that, in any new arrangements in Glamorgan, the distances between wards will be reduced?

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am aware that some of the distances between casual wards in Wales are rather long, and in considering any-new arrangements which may be submitted to me for Glamorgan, I shall certainly have regard to the distances between the wards.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

NECESSITOUS SCHOOLCHILDREN (FOOTWEAR).

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether the Board will authorise expenditure by local education authorities for the purchase of children's footwear in needy cases; and, if so, whether the expenditure will rank for grant?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): Under the existing law, the Board have no power to authorise expenditure by local education authorities on the purchase of footwear for necessitous schoolchildren, or to pay grant in respect of such expenditure.

Sir P. Harris: Does the Board pay grant for gymnasium shoes for physical exercises and training?

Mr. Lindsay: I think so.

TEACHERS (PARIS COURSE).

Captain Cobb: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that 200 English and Welsh teachers will visit Paris at Easter as the guests of the French Government; and what arrangements have been made for this visit?

Mr. Lindsay: Yes, Sir. The Board, in co-operation with the British Institute in Paris, have arranged a course for teachers of French in secondary schools in England and Wales. The proposal to hold the course has produced a gratifying expression of interest from the authorities of the University of Paris, who, acting in


agreement with the French Ministry of National Education, have undertaken to meet the whole of the expenses of the organisation of the course and of the provision of the necessary lecturers. In addition the University of Paris have placed the amenities of the Sorbonne at the disposal of the members of the course. My Noble Friend would like to take this opportunity of expressing his great appreciation of the generous help and co-operation of the French Government, which he has already conveyed to the French authorities.

Sir P. Harris: Will the Board consider giving a similar invitation to French teachers to visit England, in order to encourage these desirable exchanges?

Mr. Lindsay: I hope that that will take place next year.

Mr. Davidson: Does not the Board think that the Italian language will be more necessary to the school children in the future?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

WEARDALE AND BARNARD CASTLE.

Mr. Sexton: asked the Minister of Health the number of houses necessary to re-house people under overcrowding proposals in the Weardale Rural District, Barnard Castle Urban District, and Barnard Castle Rural District, respectively; and how many such houses have been completed in each district?

Sir K. Wood: The number of houses found to be overcrowded in the three districts to which the hon. Member refers was 136, 28, and 147. I am as yet unable to give precise information as to the number of new houses which will be required to abate this overcrowding. No houses for this purpose have yet been completed.

Mr. Sexton: Is the Minister satisfied with the progress that has been made in these districts?

Sir K. Wood: I would like to see more progress made.

Mr. Sexton: asked the Minister of Health the number of houses scheduled for slum clearance in the Weardale Rural District, Barnard Castle Urban District, and Barnard Castle Rural District, respectively; and the number of new

houses completed under slum clearance schemes in each district?

Sir K. Wood: The slum clearance programme of the local authorities for the three districts mentioned comprise 75, 140, and 128 houses, respectively. The numbers of replacement houses completed are 14, 50, and 4.

SUBSIDY.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the resolutions from the Stoke-on-Trent City Council and the Bridlington Borough Council urging him to revise his proposals so as to provide that such new Exchequer contributions shall be payable in respect of all houses erected for overcrowding, including those in construction at the present time, completed after 31st March, instead of 31st December, 1938; and what action is it proposed to take on this matter?

Sir K. Wood: An amendment dealing with this point is on the Order Paper in relation to the Committee stage of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill.

CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITIONS.

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the Minister of Health whether, taking the number of houses built since 1918 and the number demolished since that date, he can state the approximate net increase?

Sir K. Wood: I regret that I have no complete information in regard to the number of houses demolished since 1918, as the figures of demolitions furnished to my Department relate only to slum clearance operations. At 30th September, 1937, 151,844 houses had been demolished in connection with those operations. The Ridley Committee on the Rent Restrictions Acts estimated that the total number of houses demolished in England and Wales since 1914 for all purposes other than slum clearance is about 60,000. On the basis of these figures the net increase in the number of houses between 1918 and 30th September, 1937, in England and Wales was in round figures 3,300,000.

Mr. Maxton: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we were to have a great war on the slums, and will he say whether this is it?

Sir K. Wood: The figures I have given show that great progress has been made. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman thinks about it.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Do not the Census returns show that between 1921 and 1931 some 200,000 houses were demolished?

Mr. Maxton: That was before the war on the slums.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the advisability, before approving a resolution to prepare a scheme under the Town Planning Act, of satisfying himself that the planning authority is possessed of an adequate and qualified staff or adviser for the purpose of preparing the scheme, and that competent architectural advice will be made use of by the interim development authority in the consideration of proposals submitted during the interim period?

Sir K. Wood: Parliament has entrusted local authorities with the responsibility of preparing planning schemes, and I have no jurisdiction to prescribe the number or qualifications of their staff in this connection. I may, however, say that having regard to the active part now taken by county councils in the preparation of schemes, and to the extension of the joint committee system, the general standard of administration under the Act of 1932 is steadily improving. As regards interim development applications, the hon. Member is aware that the voluntary panels of architects are now widely called into consultation by authorities, and I am ready to bring this system further to the notice of the authority in any area where I have reason to think that it is desirable to do so.

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in how many cases a competent architectural adviser has been available in connection with the scheme?

Sir K. Wood: I will inquire and will let the hon. Gentleman know.

Oral Answers to Questions — RANELAGH CLUB GROUNDS.

Commander Marsden: asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to institute an inquiry into the conduct of members of the Barnes Corporation in connection with the sale of the Ranelagh Club grounds?

Sir K. Wood: I understand that the corporation have entered into an agreement with the directors of the club to

which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, under Section 34 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, with regard to the development of the grounds, and that the validity of this agreement is shortly to be tested in the courts. In the circumstances I can express no opinion on, nor direct any investigation into, the propriety of the council's action.

Oral Answers to Questions — BIRTH RATE.

Sir John Birchall: asked the Minister of Health the latest figures of the birth rate in the following cases: schoolmasters, clergymen, professional men, and skilled and unskilled wage earners?

Sir K. Wood: The Registrar-General's report upon occupational birth rates in 1931 is not yet complete; and certain advance figures only can be given. As they involve a tabular statement, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate the statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Jenkins: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the figures for Cabinet Ministers?

Following is the statement:


ENGLAND AND WALES.


Occupational Birth Rates, 1931.



Crude live birth rate per 1,000 Married Males under 55 years of age.


All Married Males (including unoccupied) under 55 years of age.
95.9


Clergymen (Anglican Church).
70.5


Teachers (not Music Teachers).
59.9


Professional Occupations (excluding clerical staff).
73.5


Social Class III, Skilled Workers.
95.3


Social Class V, Unskilled Workers.
122.2

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Mr. Parker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that certain aged Income Tax commissioners insist on attending meetings for duties which they are unable to perform in a proper manner, and that the Income Tax Codification Committee did not deal with


this matter as they deemed it to be outside their terms of reference; and whether he will take steps to secure that in future these duties are performed by persons fully able to perform them?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): Any proposal of this character would require legislation, and, on the information at present available, I do not consider that any action in that direction is called for.

Mr. Day: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of discount allowed on the last financial year in respect of prepayment of Income Tax under Schedule D assessment according to Section 159 of the Income Tax Act, 1918; and the number of persons who availed themselves of this allowance during this period?

Sir J. Simon: The total amount of discount allowed in the year to 31st March, 1937. was £69,397, and the number of cases was 2,240.

Mr. Day: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if greater publicity were given to the fact that people can obtain a substantial discount by the prompt payment of Income Tax, many more would avail themselves of it?

Sir J. Simon: The hon. Member may recall that, as a result of some remarks made in the course of the Debates on the Finance Bill last year, a new arrangement was made; and, as far as I understand, arrangements are being made to state in very plain terms on the notice of assessment how discount can be obtained.

Mr. Day: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider issuing, with the notice of assessment, a special notice calling attention to that arrangement?

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY (CREDIT FACILITIES).

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that there will be no British loan to the Italian Government?

Sir J. Simon: No such loan is contemplated.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Can the Chancellor give an assurance that no such loan will be made?

Sir J. Simon: No such loan has been asked for, and I have no reason to suppose that it will be asked for.

Mr. Thorne: Is not the embargo on foreign loans being lifted for the purpose of assisting the man in question?

Sir J. Simon: If the hon. Member will read the notice dealing with the modifications in the foreign loans procedure, he will see that it refers to quite a different purpose.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that no guarantee at the expense of the British taxpayer will be given for the promotion of additional imports into Italy?

Sir J. Simon: Export credit guarantees are given for the benefit of United Kingdom exporters, and not for the benefit of foreign importers. In the case of Italy, as in the case of any other country, applications will continue, as at present, to be dealt with by the Export Credits Advisory Committee solely on business grounds with a view to assisting United Kingdom export trade.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Is not the right hon. Gentleman fully aware that the Treasury exercise considerable influence, on general grounds, on these export credits; and, in view of the particular conditions of Italian credit at the present time, can he give a more explicit answer to my question?

Sir J. Simon: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that there is an Export Credits Guarantee Department, which, as, he knows, is run as a business concern, with an advisory committee of business men. It deals with all foreign countries, and I do not doubt that the question of credit is one of the questions which are taken into consideration.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Can we take it that no political influence will be brought to bear by the Government on this organisation to give more generous credit to Italy than has been given in the past?

Sir J. Simon: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at my original answer, he will see that I said that applications will continue, in the case of Italy as in the case of other countries, to be dealt with by the Export Credits Advisory Committee on business grounds.

Sir T. Moore: Will the Chancellor bear in mind the fact that the coal trade of Ayrshire is largely dependent on the Italian market?

Sir P. Harris: Have export credits been given recently in the ordinary way of business to Italy?

Sir J. Simon: That question would have to be put down.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Does the answer cover the original dictatorship—that of Russia?

Mr. Johnston: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what at the moment is the rate of interest charged on these export credits?

Sir J. Simon: I should think that it varies, but I do not know.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN DEPOSITS (INTEREST).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the payment of unnecessarily high interest rates on the substantial foreign deposits held in London increases the amount of invisible imports represented by earnings on foreign capital invested in Great Britain; and whether, in view of the growing adverse trade balance, he will take steps to prevent this payment of excessive interest?

Sir J. Simon: I do not regard the particular considerations referred to in the first part of the question as a decisive factor in our balance of payments. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. The complicated questions involved are rather a matter for study by the city authorities.

Mr. Strauss: Even if this factor is not a decisive one, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the policy of the banks is directly contrary to the national interest at the moment?

Sir J. Simon: I do not think that that is a matter of deliberate policy with the banks. The question arises in connection with a large number of different kinds of institutions in the city. It is, as I have said, a complicated matter which seems to me to be one that is suitable for study by the city authorities.

Mr. Strauss: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOBACCO LICENCES.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the conditions upon which licences to sell tobacco are granted to private householders?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): Any person, whether a private householder or not, may take out a licence to sell tobacco at any premises on payment of the proper duty. There are no special conditions attached to the grant of a licence to private householders.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. Hopkin: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Mrs. Elizabeth James, Broncairo, Llanarthney, Carmarthen, who is over 70 years of age, was awarded an old age pension of 10s. weekly on 9th October, 1937, and that the decision was reversed on 12th November, 1937, on an appeal by the pensions officer; that she is an invalid and a grown-up daughter remains at home, therefore, to act as housekeeper; that the household income is 48s. weekly; that her husband, aged 63, has for many years been a pensions contributor under the National Health Insurance Acts; and whether, having regard to the anomalies existing, he will consider the introduction of amending legislation to meet this and like cases of hardship in old age among the working classes?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I understand that the facts are substantially as stated in the question. I am afraid I cannot undertake to introduce amending legislation on the lines the hon. Member suggests, since any attempt, when calculating means for pensions purposes, to allow deductions in cases of incapacity or infirmity in respect of the cost of domestic help would give rise to many difficulties and create many anomalies.

Mr. Hopkin: If the amount came from dividends on investments, would not this person, at the age of 70, be entitled to claim a 10s. pension?

Oral Answers to Questions — INLAND REVENUE STAMPING DEPARTMENT.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the intended transfer to the


Stationery Office printing works at Harrow of the bulk revenue stamping now carried out at Somerset House by the stamping department of the Board of Inland Revenue, he will consider, before the transfer is carried out, the question of the resulting inconvenience to commercial interests situate in central London?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Yes, Sir. Any representations which the interests concerned may desire to make on this important aspect of the transfer will receive the most careful consideration.

Mr. D. Adams: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, after a delay of two and a half years, the Board of Inland Revenue has finally rejected a claim for the establishment of the class of unestablished women tellers employed in the office of the director of stamping and is now delaying the reference to the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal of a claim by the appropriate staff association for a compensatory increase in pay for this class; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the position of members of this class is not prejudiced by the delay on the part of the Board of Inland Revenue in agreeing to terms of reference for the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I am aware that the Board of Inland Revenue have rejected the claim for establishment of the grade of unestablished women tellers in the office of their Director of Stamping, and that the appropriate staff association has submitted a claim for a compensatory increase in pay. I cannot agree that the board are delaying their consideration of this claim. The claim was received on 2nd February, and the board replied on 11th February asking for certain information, which was furnished on 16th February. The matter is now under active consideration, and will continue to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. I see no reason to suppose in these circumstances that the position of the officers concerned is likely to be prejudiced.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

CATTLE GRADING, MALTON.

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the resentment that has been aroused in Yorkshire at the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of the Malton graders on 11th

January; whether any complaint at their methods of grading had been made except as a result of visits to the market made by Mr. D. W. Wright, the late inspector supervising the grading at Malton; whether it has been alleged that at any time any of the graders did not act in good faith; and whether the Livestock Commission will either reinstate the three graders or afford them the opportunity of presenting their case at a public inquiry or of appealing against their dismissal?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am aware that the dismissal of the certifying authority at Malton has given rise to representations. As regards the second part of the question, reports on the unsatisfactory grading at Malton had been made by two other officers, and also by a firm of wholesale butchers. As regards the third part, the grounds on which the appointments were terminated by the Livestock Commission were stated in the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on 21st February, to which I have nothing to add. As regards the last part, I understand that the Livestock Commission see no justification for adopting any of the courses mentioned.

Mr. Turton: Is the Minister aware that in this period the number of rejections at Malton was one in every five animals, while at another centre looked after by Mr. Wright it was one in every 500; and will he recommend to the Livestock Commission that they should take steps to remove the feeling of injustice that is current throughout the whole of the North of England?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware of the state of things which my hon. Friend mentions; but I am aware that complaints against grading have been going on since the beginning of 1935, and I think the House will agree with me that the Livestock Commission, which has been charged by this House with the administration of the subsidy, should be supported in enforcing proper grading.

Mr. Turton: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

LAND DRAINAGE.

Viscount Elmley: asked the Minister of Agriculture when he will consult with representatives of catchment and internal drainage boards regarding the


working of the Land Drainage Act, 1930?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: If my Noble Friend is referring to the amendment of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, I have already asked the Catchment Boards Association to let me have their views on the subject, and I have also expressed my willingness to consider a memorandum on the same subject which, I understand, the recently formed Association of Drainage Authorities proposes to submit to me.

GRASSLAND.

Major Whiteley: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that sufficient technical knowledge and equipment is available satisfactorily to carry out the ploughing-out of grassland which would be necessary in the event of war?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The technical problems that would arise, and the provision of any additional equipment that might be required in the event of a ploughing-up campaign, have received and are receiving the fullest consideration.

MILK (QUALITY BONUSES).

Mr. Pearson: asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the total amount of quality bonuses paid for accredited and tuberculin-tested milk and the estimated gallonage on which quality bonuses were paid in Glamorganshire for the years 1936 and 1937?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: As the reply contains a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

I regret that the information desired is not readily available, as the records of the Milk Marketing Board relating to sales of milk and payments to producers are not kept by counties, but on a regional basis. In 1936, the amount of accredited milk sold through the Board in the South Wales region, which includes Glamorgan, was 6,164,000 gallons, and the quality bonuses paid from pool funds totalled approximately £25,000. In 1937, the amount was 8,622,000 gallons and the total quality bonus paid was approximately £36,000. The quality bonus on

tuberculin tested milk was not paid prior to 1st October, 1937, when sales of this milk were first brought within the Milk Marketing Scheme. In the last three months of 1937, 508,000 gallons of tuberculin tested milk were sold through the Board in the South Wales region, the total quality bonus paid amounting to some £4,000.

PIG INDUSTRY.

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the Government's policy towards the pig industry?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 1st February, to which I have, at present, nothing to add.

Mr. Turton: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this delay is causing great unsettlement in the industry; and will he do something as soon as he can?

Mr. De la Bère: When are to know something?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

ANTHRACITE (EXPORTS TO CANADA).

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has had further consultations with the representatives of the Dominion of Canada with a view to recovering our export trade in anthracite coal with the Dominion during the forthcoming season; and whether he can indicate the result of his consultations?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): No, Sir. The decline in exports of United Kingdom anthracite to Canada is due to purely commercial factors outside Governmental control, and has occurred despite the fact that United Kingdom anthracite enjoys a preference of 50 cents per ton over its foreign competitors.

Mr. Griffiths: In view of the fact that the Minister says he is taking no action, I should like to ask whether he realises the importance of this market, and whether he is aware that it was built up largely as a result of the efforts of the late Labour Government, and whether the message he wants to give the South Wales miners is that he cannot keep the trade that the Labour party got for them?

Captain Crookshank: I should be very sorry to have it thought that I said that.

Mr. Griffiths: That is what it sounded like.

DISPUTE, POLMAISE PITS, STIRLINGSHIRE.

Mr. Westwood: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is now in possession of the full information as to the cause of the stoppage of work at Polmaise Nos. 1 and 2 pits, Stirlingshire; can he state the cause of the stoppage; and what action he proposes with a view to bringing both parties together with a view to effecting a settlement?

Captain Crookshank: I have made further inquiries into this matter, but, as the hon. Member will be aware, it is not the practice of my Department to intervene in local disputes except when such intervention is desired by both sides.

Mr. Westwood: Is the Minister aware that there is a charge being made by the men that they are being asked to break the Coal Mines (Regulation) Act, and, that being so, will he be prepared to meet the representatives of the men at the earliest possible moment in order to see that the law is administered properly by his Department?

Captain Crookshank: Any allegation of breaking the law is quite a different matter. I was dealing with the question of intervening in a dispute.

Mr. Westwood: Will the Minister be prepared to meet representatives of the men in order to discuss this point?

Captain Crookshank: If the allegation is made that the law is being broken, I shall look into it, but, when it is a question of intervening in a dispute, I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that the normal practice of not intervening on either side is most likely to be helpful.

Mr. Westwood: Is the Minister aware that his Department has already communicated with the men, with a view to discussion, and will he be prepared to meet the deputation with me?

Captain Crookshank: I have already-said that I will look into any allegation of breaking the law. Perhaps the hon. Member will have a word with me after, because it is very desirable not to exacerbate feeling.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEXICAN OIL (CENTRALAMER, LIMITED).

Mr. Johnston: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the attempted purchase of £3,000,000 worth of oil from the Mexican Government by a British-owned firm called Centralamer, Limited; whether the company in question is in receipt of any British Government subventions or subsidies for tramp shipping; and whether he can say where is its registered office?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): Reports, some of which have mentioned Centralamer, Limited, have appeared in the Press of purchases of oil by a British company from the Mexican Government, but I have no official information of the transaction. No payment of tramp shipping subsidy has been made to Centralamer, Limited, whose registered office is at 49, Leadenhall Street, E.C.3.

Mr. Johnston: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say when that company was registered, as it has not appeared in the ordinary list?

Captain Wallace: If the right hon. Gentleman will put that question down, I will find out.

Mr. Johnston: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether this oil is really designed for Japanese aggression in China?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister what will be the business for next week?

The Prime Minister: Monday: Defence Debate.
Tuesday: Committee stage of Supplementary Estimates, beginning with Colonial and Middle Eastern Services; Broadcasting; and Ministry of Labour.
Wednesday: Committee stage of Supplementary Estimates for Diplomatic and Consular Services; Foreign Office; League of Nations; and consideration of any outstanding Supplementary Estimates.
Thursday: Motion to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on Army Estimates and consideration of Votes A 1,


2, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, Ordnance Factories Vote, 1938, and Army Supplementary Estimate, 1937, in Committee.
Friday: Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.
The order in which Supplementary Estimates are to be taken on Tuesday and Wednesday has been arranged through the usual channels.

Mr. Attlee: What form will the Defence Debate take? Will the Government put a Motion on the Paper?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I will put a Motion down to-night.

Mr. Attlee: As to broadcasting, in view of that being a new service and very important, I hope that it will not be taken at a late hour at night.

The Prime Minister: I cannot give a guarantee, but I hope that it will not. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that we have to get through these Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask what it is proposed to take to-day in the event of the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule being carried?

The Prime Minister: The suspension of the Rule is being moved in order that we may take the Committee stage of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill, and I hope we shall be able to finish this stage. I do not propose to ask the House to sit beyond midnight.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 126.

Division No. 114.]
AYES.
[3.48 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Fleming, E. L.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Albery, Sir Irving
Colfox, Major W. P.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Gluckstein, L. H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Assheton, R.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Grant-Ferris, R.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Critchley, A.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Grimston, R. V.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Crooke, Sir J. S.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.


Beechman, N. A.
Cross, R. H.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Crossley, A. C.
Harbord, A.


Bernays, R. H.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Harris, Sir P. A.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Culverwell, C. T.
Hartington, Marquess of


Bird, Sir R. B.
Dawson, Sir P.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)


Blair, Sir R.
De Chair, S. S.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Bossom, A. C.
De la Bère, R.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Boulton, W. W.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Doland, G. F.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Hepworth, J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Duggan, H. J.
Higgs, W. F.


Bull, B. B.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Dunglass, Lord
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Eastwood, J. F.
Holdsworth, H.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Eckersley, P. T.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Butler, R. A.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Hulbert, N. J.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Ellis, Sir G.
Keeling, E. H.


Carver, Major W. H.
Elmley, Viscount
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Cary, R. A.
Emery, J. F.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Errington, E.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Channon, H.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Leech, Sir J. W.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Everard, W. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Christie, J A.
Fildes, Sir H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Findlay, Sir E.
Levy, T.




Liddall, W. S.
Petherick, M.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Lindsay, K. M.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Lipson, D. L.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Storey, S.


Lloyd, G. W.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Procter, Major H. A.
Strauss, E. A. (Southward, N.)


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


M'Connell, Sir J.
Ramsbotham, H.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Ramsden, Sir E.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Suater, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Sutcliffe, H.


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Tate, Mavis C.


McKie, J. H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Magnay, T.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Touche, G. C.


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Mander, G. le M.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Turton, R. H.


Markham, S. F.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Wakefield, W. W.


Marsden, Commander A.
Rowlands, G.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Russell, Sir Alexander
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Warrender, Sir V.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Salmon, Sir I.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Moreing, A. C.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)
Wayland, Sir W. A


Morgan, R. H.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Sandys, E. D.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Munro, P.
Savery, Sir Servington
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Nail, Sir J.
Scott, Lord William
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Selley, H. R.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Palmer, G. E. H.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Patrick, C. M.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)



Peal, C. U.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Perkins, W. R. D.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Captain Hope and Mr. Furness.


Peters, Dr. S. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Messer, F.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Milner, Major J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Montague, F.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Banfield, J. W.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Batey, J.
Hardie, Agnes
Muff, G.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hayday, A.
Naylor, T. E.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Paling, W.


Benson, G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Parker, J.


Bromfield, W.
Henderson, T. (Tradesten)
Parkinson, J. A.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Pearson, A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Hollins, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Buchanan, G.
Hopkin, D.
Price, M. P.


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Pritt, D. N.


Cape, T.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Cassells, T.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Ridley, G.


Chater, D.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Riley, B.


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Ritson, J.


Cocks, F. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Robinson. W. A. (St. Helens)


Cove, W. G.
Kirby, B. V.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Daggar, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Sexton, T. M.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Shinwell, E.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lathan, G.
Silkin, L.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lawson, J. J.
Silverman, S. S.


Day, H.
Leach, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Dobbie, W.
Lee, F.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Ede, J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lunn, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stephen, C.


Frankel, D.
McEntee, V. La T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Gallacher, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Gardner, B. W.
MacLaren, A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Maclean, N.
Thorne, W.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Thurtle, E.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Marshall, F.
Tinker, J. J.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Mathers, G.
Tomlinson, G.


Grenfell, D. R.
Maxton, J.
Viant, S. P.







Walker, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Watson, W. McL.
Williams, T. (Den Valley)



Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Westwood, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.


Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

STREET PLAYGROUNDS BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 95.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 72.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Hutchinson; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. H. G. Williams.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That Sir John Anderson, being a Member representing a Scottish constituency, is added to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills under Standing Order No. 47 (2).

Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the law of Scotland with regard to divorce and nullity and dissolution of marriage." [Divorce and Nullity of Marriage (Scotland) [Lords.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE I.—(General provision for contributions in respect of housing accommodation provided by local authorities.)

4.0 p.m.

The Chairman: The first two Amendments, which stand in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills)—in page 1, line 9, after "completed," insert
as regards housing accommodation mentioned in paragraph (a) of Sub-section (4) of this Section
and in page 1, line 10, after "thirty-nine," insert
and as regards other housing accommodation after the second day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight
appear to be one, and in that event they are out of order. The first Amendment by itself would be in order.

Major Hills: Under Sub-section (2) of Clause 10 the Minister has power to treat a house completed before a certain date as if it were a house completed after the beginning of the year 1939 notwithstanding that it was completed before the beginning of that year. Some local authorities have pushed forward with their housing schemes and may have signed contracts. I ask that those houses should not be excluded from the subsidy. Would not that subject be within the terms of the Financial Resolution?

The Chairman: The point of the proposal is that it would bring in more houses to earn the subsidy and would thus increase the charge. That is why it is out of order. The next two Amendments, in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) and the hon. and learned Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson) are outside the scope of this Bill.

4.2 p.m.

Sir Percy Hurd: I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, to leave out "urban," and to insert "county."
The Committee will realise the purpose of this Amendment. In Sub-section (3) of the Clause provision is made for an additional Exchequer contribution of £1 per house to be payable annually for 40 years for accommodation provided by non-county borough local authorities or urban district councils, where the Ministry is satisfied that because of certain exceptional circumstances the provision of the new accommodation would impose an undue burden on the borough or district. I want to put to the Minister the consideration that it is not alone in the two categories mentioned in the Clause, but also in rural districts, that there are exceptional circumstances and where there is an undue burden. We claim that it is only right and fair that this extra £1 should be allotted to them as well as to the two other categories. The right hon. Gentleman knows well how impoverished many rural districts are. We cannot see why the rural districts should be put in any worse position than the urban districts and non-county boroughs. We ask the Minister to give us a fair level of treatment in these exceptional circumstances and under this undue burden. I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is taking this course because the urban districts are more insistent or the rural districts more complacent. I believe that my right hon. Friend does desire to give us fair treatment and I ask him to look at the matter in that way.
We warmly appreciate in the rural districts what the Minister has done and is doing to aid us in filling the housing needs of these areas. I can say that he on his part warmly appreciates what is being done by local authorities. Last year he came down to the Rural District Councils' annual conference at Scarborough, a remarkable gathering of 600 to 700 delegates, two out of three of them non-official, performing perfectly voluntary service to the cause of the rural areas. My right hon. Friend then paid a warm tribute to the way in which the rural councils have come forward and assisted in meeting the housing needs of their areas. We ask him to remember that tribute and to give the rural district councils a fair chance of continuing to earn his good word.
There is a new keenness in the local government of rural areas, a new desire to meet the new needs arising on every hand. I know there are hon. Members


who will say: "But look how laggard some of the rural councils are." I have heard of county councils being laggard; I could point to one or two who are very laggard, and to urban district councils, too. The rural district councils are making a serious and successful effort to meet the new needs of the time in a spirit of keenness. We ask that that spirit should not be damped down. In the main rents in the rural districts are substantially lower than those in the urban districts and non-county boroughs. In his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister made a remark which I cannot understand. He was talking of the exceptional cases, and said:
Lastly, in connection with the exceptional cases which we are endeavouring to meet as regards the non-agricultural population in the rural districts, I am advised that under the financial arangements set out in Clause 1 it will be possible to provide cottages (A.3.) at a rent of 5s., with only the statutory rate contribution by the local authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1938; col. 1737. Vol. 331.]
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is not the information which reaches me. If this extra contribution, because of exceptional circumstances and the undue burden, is not made, the houses will not be made available, except by placing a very undue strain on the local authorities. Why should the ordinary rural worker in a village be thrust on one side because he does not happen to be labelled as an agricultural labourer? We know how essential to the life of a village these rural workers are, and we feel that they should not be put in a worse position than the agricultural worker. If we turn to the report of the sub-committee of the Ministry which dealt with rural housing, on page 6 we find that the purpose that that sub-committee had in view was to meet a serious shortage and to cancel the unfortunate effect of that shortage on the well-being and contentment of the rural population. The subcommittee was thinking of the whole rural population. On page 8 it is noted that when industrial workers come into a village from the towns where they have earned town wages, they need not come under these exceptional terms; but those for whom I am speaking are not industrial workers of that sort; they are village workers and are subject to the wage conditions which apply to agricultural

labourers. The weekly minimum wage of the agricultural worker is 32s. These village workers are in much the same wage position.
On page 10 of the report to which I have referred the sub-committee consider that there should be a new subsidy which could conveniently take the form of making available for houses to meet general agricultural needs whatever contribution may be payable. In these circumstances I ask whether my right hon. Friend cannot reconsider this point. The rural district councils feel very strongly upon it. Forty-four of their branches have passed resolutions pointing out that if the extra contribution is not made they will be seriously harassed in their housing work. We ask for equity of treatment as between them and other local authorities.

4.10 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): My hon. Friend has put his case with strength and clarity, and I want at once to say that so far as the authorities of which he has spoken are concerned I do recognise the importance of their work. I was very glad indeed to go down to Scarborough to their annual conference, and if they have a conference next year at a suitable place I shall do my best to be there also. I have no doubt that these authorities are doing good work. I desire to support them in it, and the object of my visit to Scarborough was to encourage them to still further efforts, which I know they are keen to make. In this matter there is no reflection in any way upon the work of these local authorities, but the distinction which is being made in the Bill was due to my anxiety specially to assist what I described on the Second Reading of the Bill as a limited number of small urban districts where exceptional circumstances prevail, and I have suggested a special supplementary provision for such areas.
The conditions which I indicated were two—a general level of working-class rents substantially below those applicable to the working class in urban areas generally, and the very limited financial resources of these districts. I stated that in my judgment the number of districts that would satisfy these conditions was not large, and I gave as an instance of the cases I had in mind some small boroughs and urban districts in rural Wales, where new houses could not be


provided at suitable rents without an undue burden being placed on the district. My hon. Friend has now suggested that that particular provision, which was intended for those few limited cases, should be further extended. My answer is that already a generous measure of financial assistance is being given by this Bill towards houses for the agricultural population, which of course may be expected to form a substantial proportion of the population of rural districts. In the case of those houses the measure of assistance afforded to rural district councils, in relation to the contribution made to the rates by the district council, is in no less a proportion than ten to one, compared with a normal contribution of two to one. That is not only a considerable assistance to a great majority of the persons for whom my hon. Friend is speaking, but it should be observed that this amount and proportion of the Exchequer contribution will be paid into the housing revenue account of the rural district council, and in that respect therefore the housing revenue account in fact will be substantially greater than that of other districts.

Sir P. Hurd: The councils say that it will be impossible to do what the right hon. Gentleman wishes without this extra contribution.

Sir K. Wood: Experience tells us that there are differences of opinion on this matter, and I hope that they will be cleared up quickly when the Bill is passed and it is seen what the exact financial implications are. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has been through the same experience as myself, and will agree with me that most careful consideration and investigation is given to these figures. The figures which I have presented to the Committee have been carefully examined and are generally on the cautious side. The contention of the hon. Member cannot be maintained, having regard to the considerable proportion of Exchequer contribution which is paid into the housing revenue account of the rural districts. For the reasons that I have given, I regret that I am unable to accept the Amendment.

Sir P. Hurd: In spite of the circumstances mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, these houses are not being provided at rents which the village workers can pay.

Sir K. Wood: I think that, as a result of the exceptional financial contributions that will be made, the hon. Member will see a considerable improvement in that direction.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I am bound to say, with all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that he has hardly answered the case put up by the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd), who always is a stalwart defender of the rural district councils. The point that he made has not been answered by the right hon. Gentleman. The talk about the agricultural workers and housing revenue does not meet the point. The hon. Member's argument is that under the general arrangement provided in the Clause, county districts other than urban districts are excluded. County districts even in rural areas are not populated wholly by agricultural workers. There is no agricultural parish in this country where the agricultural workers are in a vast majority. Who are the people living in these areas? It is not merely the farm workers who are living there but the lorry driver, the garage hand, the roadman, the railway worker, the employés of the little village factory, the local brewery, the local laundry, the local cement works, the local tannery and, it may be, the local jam factory. These workers have urbanised the area. There are rural district councils whose name is a misnomer, because they are predominantly industrial.
The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to deal with particular categories, but to say that when he has made provision for the agricultural worker he has provided all the housing revenue for the rural population, is entirely false. The right hon. Gentleman might have made a better attempt to deal with the hon. Member's case. I do not see eye to eye with the hon. Member on most matters, but here is a case for putting the rural district council on precisely the same footing as the urban authorities in Clause 1. If it is a case of rents, what areas are there more impoverished from that point of view than the rural areas? Agricultural workers are the most ill-paid workers. The second condition which the right hon. Gentleman emphasises is that of the undue burden on the districts. What poorer local authorities are there than the rural district councils, where sometimes a penny rate brings in only a


few pounds? Surely, if there ever was a case it is the case made by the hon. Member, that this special assistance should not be provided only for non-county boroughs and urban districts, but for the rural district councils also. If the hon. Member carries the matter to a Division he will find me in the Lobby with himself.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: A serious anomaly will arise if Clause 1 is allowed to go through without the Amendment. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has said, it is too readily assumed that rural district councils are really rural councils and cater exclusively for rural populations. While that may be true in general, it is far from being true in particular, and I would join in the appeal to the Minister that he should reconsider the matter. I would ask him to consider the circumstances of my own constituency which is covered almost entirely by two rural district councils, having within them only one urban authority. I do not know what proportion of the population in those areas would be regarded as being an agricultural community, but it would be a very small proportion. As to about nine or 10 to one the population covered by those two councils is a mining population. That being the case, within the provisions of the Bill as it stands both those rural district councils will be denied the advantage of the extra subsidy provided in Clause 1. They would be entitled if they were classed as urban district councils or as non-county boroughs, but they are denied it because they are rural district councils although they cover a similar population than that covered normally by an urban council.
Within the area covered by one of these rural district councils there is an urban authority, with a population of 8,000. They, presumably, will get the advantage of the provisions of this Clause. In the area round about that which is covered by the rural district councils, there is a small town with a population of 11,000, governed by a parish council, but the housing authority is the rural district council. Under the provisions of the Clause they will be denied the advantage of the extended subsidy. There we have the position of one small urban authority getting the benefit of the Clause and a

larger rural district authority, with extended responsibility, being denied the benefit. The extension of the subsidy from £5 to £6 10s. would be within the discretion of the Minister even if the Amendment were accepted. There would be no danger of extravagance in accepting the Amendment but there would be a certainty that it would avoid the gross anomaly which will otherwise be created.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider this matter between now and the Report stage. The points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) merit full consideration. It cannot be said that all rural districts are of a similar character. The difference between a rural district council in the North Riding and a rural district council in the West Riding of Yorkshire is greater than the difference between a non-county borough and an urban district council in Sussex. Within the area of a rural district council it often happens that there are non-agricultural workers, such as miners or low-paid industrial employés, who five in bad houses, and where overcrowding conditions exist. These people will not be helped by the Clause as it stands.
I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman is doing a good deal in Clause 2 for the rural district councils whose areas are really agricultural, and I am deeply grateful to him for that, but we cannot overlook the fact that many rural district councils have to administer areas which are not strictly rural. In my own division there is a rural district council within whose area there are comparatively few agricultural labourers. Many other hon. Members must have in their areas rural district councils the majority of which have very few agricultural labourers in their areas. Those districts will not need to put up houses purely for the agricultural population, as defined by Clause 2, but they have their problems of overcrowding and slum clearance. I do not ask my right hon. Friend to take any hurried action but I do ask him to give an undertaking that between now and the Report stage he will consider the matter further, especially in view of an Amendment down to Clause 2, which if accepted may cause a further problem under Clause 1.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. R. Acland: I support what has been said from the point of view of the purely rural area. There are areas which are rural in fact as well as in name where there are large numbers of people of the economic standing of the agricultural labourer. I have particularly in mind the man who works on the county roads and whose pay is only 1s. or so higher than that of the agricultural labourer, and I am wondering how the rural councils are to house these men. I support the appeal to the Minister to reconsider the matter.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I support the Amendment, and if it goes to a Division I shall be glad to vote for it. The Minister said that he was guided by the representations made to him and the experience he had gathered from various parts of the country, including Wales. The counties which the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) and I represent present one of the gravest housing problems in the whole of Wales, and unless the Clause can be altered, the Minister will find that he will not be able to deal with the housing problems in those districts. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) is now conducted an investigation into the tuberculosis problem in South Wales, where the housing conditions in what are described as rural but what are often urban and semi-urban districts are such as to make us feel ashamed of them. Most of these areas are semi-urban. In my own constituency there are Llanelly and Llandilo rural districts, where the bulk of the inhabitants are miners and tinplate workers, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said, the name "rural" is a misnomer, because they are really urban districts. Therefore, I urge that to deny to these rural authorities which are really urban the advantages which urban authorities will get is not good for housing and is not equitable as between one authority and another.
I gather that a small urban authority in Wales will derive the increased subsidy but that a rural authority will not. Take Llanelly. If the urban council can prove that its burden is excessive, it can qualify for the higher subsidy, and we shall then have this anomaly in Wales, of an urban

authority qualifying for the subsidy whose real burden will be less than that of the rural authority. Possibly the highest rate burden carried by any authority in Wales is in Llanelly, where the rate is 29s. 10d. in the £ in one parish, but because it is a rural council in name, it will be denied this extra subsidy, and because of the rate burden there it will not be able to get the full advantage of this provision, I therefore press the Minister to reconsider this point, and if he does not, I hope we shall go into the Lobby against him.

4.32 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: Although the Minister has said that he cannot accept this Amendment, I think a strong case has been made out why he should give further consideration to it before the Report stage. Under a subsequent list of Amendments which, it may be, he is going to accept, you will then have a situation where the agricultural worker, in whatever category of administrative area he happens to live, will be specially provided for under this Bill, but unless this Amendment is accepted, or something equivalent to it, you will have one particular category of persons penalised, namely, that class of worker who is not engaged in agriculture but who yet lives in a rural district. I have in my constituency a number of very small industries which are situated in actual rural surroundings. There are tin mines, which are right out in the country, and unless these workers, many of whom are not highly paid, are included in the scope of this provision, they will fare very unfavourably as compared with the agricultural workers who may be living alongside of them in the same village. I therefore hope the Minister will be able to give further consideration to this question.

4.34 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: As hon. Members have asked me to reconsider this matter before the Report stage, I will, of course, do so. I will give it careful consideration, but I would like to say that it shows the difficulty of meeting situations of this kind. I received a recommendation from my Advisory Committee, which directed my attention to the necessity of improving housing accommodation for agricultural workers, and the great object of the Government's proposal was in that


direction. If hon. Members will look at the recommendations of the committee, they will see that they were expressly directed to that end, especially in paragraph 20 of the report, where they recommend that the subsidy should be given for the general needs of the agricultural population. That, I have endeavoured to do. There was no recommendation in the committee's report with regard to these small and difficult districts to which reference has been made this afternoon. I have received representations from other Members of the House, particularly from Wales and elsewhere, and there was no suggestion made in this connection in the report of the Advisory Committee.

Sir P. Hurd: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the rural worker is not a member of the agricultural population?

Sir K. Wood: I am endeavouring to follow out what the committee recommended, and I hope hon. Members will observe the fate of anybody who tries to do that. I hope also they will observe that I am put in the position, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite has no doubt been put in before now, of receiving claims from all parts of the Committee for the special assistance proposed to be given to particular areas only to be extended in one direction and another. Directly it is proposed, in any particular Bill, to meet special claims, obviously you must expect claims for everybody else to be met. I cannot promise more than that before the Report stage. I will reconsider what has been said, but I do hope the Committee will have regard to the considerations that I have put before them.

Sir P. Hurd: After what the Minister has said, I will not press the Amendment. I will trust to him.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.38 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 3, line 33, at the beginning, to insert, "Subsection (2) of Section 89."

This is a purely drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 3, line 34, leave out "of the principal Act."

In line 35, leave out "that," and insert "the principal."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

4.39 p.m.

Mr. Robert Gibson: The policy of the Government, as stated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health during the Committee stage of the Money Resolution, on 17th February, differs in material respects from the provisions of the Bill. That policy, as stated by him, was "to encourage cottages where possible," and, further that where that was not possible, in respect to land which cost £5,000 or more per acre, for example, in the centre of London, Liverpool, or Manchester, then he said, the Government
reluctantly agree that, in the conditions, flats are necessary "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1938; col 2187; Vol. 331.]
That seemed to state the policy of the Government fairly clearly, that where it was possible to build cottages, cottages should be built, and flats were relegated into an inferior position and were only to be recommended by the Government where cottages were not possible. The facts, as I have endeavoured to discover them by questions addressed to the Minister of Health, do not square with this policy. On Monday of this week I had an answer to a question that desired to elicit how many dwellings built or allocated since 1918, carrying State contributions or subsidies under any of the Housing Acts, were on developed sites costing various sums, those sums corresponding to the sums set out in the Schedule. The lowest group was of developed sites costing £1,500 to £4,000 per acre, rising up to sites costing sums in excess of the extraordinary figure of £30,000 per acre.
The answer that I received to that question showed that the information was available only for flats as from 1st January, 1936. In the case of flats for the abatement of overcrowding, there were no fewer than 1,589 flats approved where the sites cost from £1,500 to £4,000 per acre; there were no flats approved where the cost of the site was from £4,001 to £5,000; there were 281 flats where the site cost was from £5,001 to £6,000; 200 where the cost was from £6,001 to £8,000; and 139 where the site cost was from £8,001 to £10,000. Then


there was a break up to sites costing £16,000 per acre; and only 22 flats were approved where the site cost was from £16,001 to £18,000 per acre, and only four where the cost was from £26,001 to £28,000. Taking these figures, I find that 71 per cent. of the flats for overcrowding were on sites costing from £1,500 to £4,000. That is rather important, because it shows that these flats are built on relatively cheap land, and, according to the present Bill, houses built on that land, that is, land costing from £1,500 to £4,000, would only qualify for a subsidy of £5 10s. per dwelling and not for the £11 which a flat is to receive.
The policy stated by the Parliamentary Secretary, the policy of cottages in preference to flats, is sound, popular, and inexpensive, for these houses are infinitely to be preferred to flats. They promote health, they are suitable for children, the gardens invite the people out from the houses on good days, to read the newspapers, or for the husband to potter about and look after weeds and so on, and they promote individuality and independence. They encourage child-bearing as well. With regard to the question of popularity, there can be no doubt that a house with a garden is the Englishman's castle, it is the pride of the Englishman and the envy of the Continent. They are now copying this type of dwelling on the Continent. It is certainly the admiration of Scotsmen as they wander south to see these houses with gardens for working people in contradistinction to the great tenements in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Greenock.
Why promote flats instead of houses? Take the matter of expense. I am informed on excellent technical authority that houses as compared with flats are inexpensive. Where a flat costs £150 per room, a cottage, I am told, costs £100 per room. Since flats are built in blocks the strength of the walls has to be considerably increased and that increases proportionately the cost of the room, whereas in the case of cottages which are low the walls do not require to be so strong and substantial. I ask, why throw money away on flats which are costly and unpopular and at the best are only second best? The general policy in Subsection (1) is a subsidy of £5 10s. for a

house or flat, but Sub-section (2) introduces an exception, and the exception is where the cost of the site is expensive, and expensiveness starts where the cost of the site exceeds £1,500 per acre. I am told that just outside the centre of practically all the big towns in England land can be got at between £1,500 and £4,000 per acre for the purpose of building dwelling-houses. I am also told that building flats in blocks does not produce more houses per acre if the houses are built in the shape of tenements. In both cases from 35 to 40 flats or terraced houses can be obtained per acre. There is nothing to be gained so far as numbers are concerned.
But consider the difference between the subsidy of contribution as between flats and cottages for a site costing £1,500 to £4,000 per acre. If a house is built the subsidy is only £5 10s.; if it is a flat the subsidy is double. I ask what local authority, having regard to its duty to the ratepayers, will choose to build cottages which the Minister recommends so warmly? Surely the Bill ought to show visible evidence of his recommendation, but I find that the Bill gives a material advantage to the one thing which the Minister says he does not want. The monetary inducement to local authorities is to build flats, which the Minister deprecates, instead of houses, which he knows and states are the better. I ask, what defence has the right hon. Gentleman to offer for not giving a subsidy to houses as well as cottages on land up to £4,000 per acre?
I should like to get some further information on a point I put in a question last Monday. The answer dealt with flats for the abatement of overcrowding. As regards flats for rehousing persons displaced by slum clearance the Minister said that there were about 25,000 on the 1st January, 1936, and that about 22,000 of these were on sites costing £3,000 or more per acre. That hardly met the question I put, because I wanted to know how many flats there were on sites between £1,500 and £4,000 and how many on higher rates. I therefore should like the Minister to tell the Committee how many of these 22,000 houses are on sites costing less than £4,000 per acre, because the £4,000, from the point of view of my argument, is a crucial figure. Up to £4,000 there is this difference in


the subsidy between houses and flats which is so material.

4.51 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: This is a matter upon which I feel very strongly. I speak from some practical knowledge of the subject as a member of the London housing authority for 28 years and as the representative of a working-class district with which I have been associated for over 30 years. I can assure hon. Members that the people themselves feel very much on this question. Many people have told me that they prefer their dirty old houses and back gardens where they can keep a rabbit or two and some poultry, to the most lovely flat with a modern bathroom. They may be quite wrong, but that is their point of view, and after all we are a democratic assembly and have to consider the people for whom we are spending the money. I was responsible, I think, for clearing the first slum area in London. We cleared away some of the worst houses in dark courts in London and put up a beautiful new estate of houses with bathrooms. I went down to the place with a good deal of pride, expecting to get praise, but instead my old ladies greeted me with a great deal of abuse and told me to leave their houses alone. We have, of course, to get new ideas into their minds, but at the same time we do not want to make London like continental cities, a place entirely of flat dwellers. When you go into a continental town you see nice broad streets and big buildings and are duly impressed, but when you go inside you do not find the same individuality and independence whch is a characteristic of our English people and our London working man, which I hope will be a characteristic for all time to come.
It is, of course, more expensive to gut up flat dwellings because the walls have to be thicker, floors of concrete, every thing of strong construction and substantial against fire. On the other hand, the cottage has thinner walls and is much less costly per room to build. The problem is that when you clear away a slum the majority of the people want to live on the same spot, and although you plan your area properly you cannot get all the people back on the site in cottages, and you have to put some in block dwellings. I have seen plans where a certain number of cottages were included in a

scheme for rehousing the people on the site, and I think the right hon. Gentleman might introduce more elasticity into the subsidy and satisfy the views of many people who are really concerned about the results of this beneficent housing legislation. I had thought of putting an Amendment on the Order Paper, but thinking it would be out of order I did not do so. I should be glad if the Financial Resolution can be amended—

The Chairman: I had better tell the hon. Member what the Question before the Committee is. The Question is "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir P. Harris: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to meet my point, because I do not think it will involve any extra expenditure to make the alteration.

Sir K. Wood: What alteration?

Sir P. Harris: To allow cottages on expensive sites in addition to flats. I think it is possible to do this without any extra cost to the taxpayer.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Macquisten: The hon. and learned Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson) when he favoured cottages as against flats, struck a very appropriate note. In my opinion flats are an abomination. They are all very well if we were all pigeons, and could fly away, but they were never meant for human beings. That great despot Hitler is trying to abolish flats because he says that flats make Communists while cottages make individuals—and, incidentally, make good Conservatives. A cottage gives a man some personality, and any sensible Briton would sooner live in a little wooden shack of his own with a quarter of an acre than in the finest flat or hotel. Why should we perpetuate flats? Is it because land is a monopoly? How can you break the land monopoly? I will tell you; it is perfectly simple. Restore freedom of transport.

The Chairman: We are discussing the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill.

Mr. Macquisten: I am trying to show how to avoid flats and build cottages and I say free road transport. But this House is rotten with railway directors who are strangling road transport.

The Chairman: The hon. and learned Member could not have understood what I meant. What he is saying is quite irrelevant.

Mr. Macquisten: I am dealing with the method of getting rid of big tenements. If road transport was free there would be no block tenements or flats, the people and their work would be dispersed all over the countryside. Road transport disperses the population throughout the country, railways condense it. Congestion of population by railways is the great modern evil.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: I wish to raise a point which is of great interest to many local auhorities in the Midlands. In Clause 1 of the Bill it is provided that subsidies shall be paid only for houses that are constructed after the beginning of 1939. The effect of that will be that those local authorities which have been constructing houses in the years between the passing of the Housing Act, 1935, and the end of 1938, will not be able to obtain any part of the subsidy payable under this Measure. Many local authorities in the Midlands, under the provisions of the Housing Act, 1935, completed their overcrowding survey promptly and expeditiously and proceeded to apply to the Minister for financial assistance to enable them to construct alternative accommodation. In many cases, those local authorities have already completed a number of houses, and more will be completed during this year.
In my own constituency, in the borough of Rowley Regis, the local authority have completed, or are in course of completing, 465 houses, and in the case of 175 of those houses, they have received, following an application to the Minister, a subsidy of £5 a house for 20 years, as against £5 10s. a house for 40 years, which will be payable under this Bill in respect of a house that is completed next year or thereafter. In the urban district of Brierley Hills, more than 200 houses have been, or are in course of being, erected, which will not count for subsidy under the provisions of this Bill. The consequence is that houses built during 1937 and 1938 will receive a subsidy of £5 a house for 20 years, whereas an identical house built by the same local authority in the year 1939 or thereafter will receive a subsidy of £5 10s. a house

for 40 years. I suggest to the Minister that the effect of this will be to penalise those local authorities which have been most active in attempting to deal with overcrowding in their localities.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he visited Scarborough some years ago and enjoyed himself, and that he had a very warm welcome. I assure him that he would have a very warm welcome if he were to come to the Midlands, especially if between now and the Report stage he found it possible to bring these earlier-constructed houses within the provisions of this Measure. I believe that the Minister has as one of his chief ambitions the building of more houses during his term of office than were built during the terms of office of any of his predecessors. That is a very laudable ambition, but I hope he will remember that if he penalises local authorities which have shown themselves to be so anxious to carry out the reforms contained in various Housing Acts, passed not only by him but by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), he will not be as likely to secure their cooperation as he would be if he were, on reflection, to appreciate the strength of the case brought forward by these local authorities and, in that spirit of compromise and understanding which he has already shown this evening in regard to earlier Amendments, to find it possible between now and the Report stage to meet the local authorities in this matter.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I had intended to confine myself to asking two questions which I have been requested by several municipalities to put to the Minister of Health, but after hearing the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. Gibson), two Scottish K.C.'s, I should not be representing the people whom I have been sent here to represent if I did not express a different point of view from that of the two hon. Members. Before dealing with their speeches, however, I will put to the Minister those two specific questions. In the first place, if the right hon. Gentleman will look at Sub-section (3) of this Clause, he will see the phrase:
If the Minister thinks fit so to determine.
The point I wish to raise is not a personal


one, but one of principle. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it is good policy, in such a Bill, to leave it to the Minister to determine matters in various ways. Ought not the position to be that when the Bill becomes an Act, the local authorities will know definitely where they stand with regard to these matters and not leave them to be determined by an individual as he may think fit. Secondly, at Question Time today, I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, and he replied that the matter referred to would be dealt with in an Amendment which would be called on this Bill. That Amendment, which was in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), was ruled out of order by you, Sir Dennis. Therefore, will the Minister make a statement now in answer to the resolutions which he has received from a number of municipalities in order to encourage the relatively progressive municipalities which have already been building houses, but which will not benefit from this Bill unless some alteration is made?
With regard to the speeches of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Greenock and the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire, I admit that when I was younger I was very much prejudiced against flats. I had the privilege of going to a country where some blocks of flats were being built, and where opinions were asked with regard to the development that was taking place. I was in a group of 50 men and women most of whom admired the block of flats; but I had the courage to be critical of it. The reply which was made to me was that it was all right for idealists to speak as I had spoken, but that the problem was so serious that the building of blocks of flats was the only way of dealing with it. In spite of that experience, for many years afterwards I remained prejudiced against flats; but since I have been a Member of the House, it has been brought home to me more than ever before how serious the problem is. The problem of working-class housing accommodation, particularly in districts such as that where I was born and that which I represent, is so urgent, and the poor people have waited so long for decent accommodation, that they are now prepared to consider anything, within reason, in order that they may be taken away from the deplorable conditions in which they are living.
I have visited flats in the London area. Along the Chelsea Embankment, there are some flats; the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) and other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen live there. Those flats are luxury flats. What is good enough for those people is good enough for our people. When hon. Members talk in the way in which they have done this afternoon, I would remind them that, while it is all very well for people who are relatively well-shod, well-clad and well-housed to talk in that way, the problem of working-class accommodation is so urgent, the conditions in which our people have lived for many years are so deplorable, that flats must be built. I have seen in the Manchester districts reasonable flats which are the admiration of all progressive-minded people and an example of what can be done. I have spoken to the women who live in those flats, and have seen how their eyes have lighted up as the result of their having being taken out of the deplorable conditions in which they lived and put into those flats. I suggest that the Minister should continue with his policy and that what has been done in the Manchester district and other places should now be done in other areas, where suitable, in order that our people may have the benefit of living in modem conditions.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Marshall: I wish to make one or two observations on flats. I welcome the new Schedule of Financial Provisions regarding flats which has been inserted in the Bill. In the past local authorities have been under grave disabilities in the building of flats, and I think this new Schedule will help them considerably. The only thing about which I am sorry is that the Minister has not increased the allowance in cases where the cost per acre of the site as developed is from £1,500 to £4,000, because I think a little more generosity would have been very acceptable and would have opened up possibilities for the local authorities to embark on the building of flats of some magnitude. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson) that if people could choose whether they would live in flats or cottages, they would undoubtedly prefer to live in cottages, but that does not meet the problem. My


hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) said that flats have to be built. Let me refer to the case of a great industrial town where a considerable area has been cleared as the result of the demolition of slums. The land is not owned by the corporation, and it is impossible for private enterprise to provide flats and to let them at an economic rent. I have in mind an instance where a private company built a block of flats. I do not know how many they built to the acre. They built a huge block of flats and provided certain good amenities such as lifts and central heating, but they could not let the flats for less than 19s. a week and as far as the working man is concerned that is an impossible proposition. He cannot afford it. Unless authorities get substantial subsidies from the Government the flat proposition is impossible, and that is why I welcome these additional financial provisions.
Then, the question of the density of flats is exceedingly important. I agree with every word that was said by my hon. and learned Friend with regard to the desire of people to live in their own houses and have their own gardens and develop their own individuality. But I do not know how he visualises the building of cottages on expensive sites at 8 or 12 to the acre. That is an impossible economic proposition—of that there is no doubt. I think local authorities to-day are building flats at about 36 to 50 flats to the acre. They are not being allowed to spread out horizontally, so they have to go upwards. If you limit would-be builders to 12 cottages to the acre on expensive sites, no working man can pay an economic rent for a home of that kind. My hon. and learned Friend is inevitably forced into this position, that he would have to build long continuous rows of cottages. In fact he has to fill up the site with cottages, sooner or later, and in that way shall repeat the faults of the past. Therefore we are brought inevitably to this conclusion, that we must build flats in the centres of our cities if we are to have housing accommodation there at all.
I think there is a case for housing accommodation in the centres of the cities. I know the problem of filling expensive sites. You cannot even get industrialists to occupy them and local authorities sooner or later will have to face the redevelopment of these sites, in

many cases with housing accommodation. Personally, I see no alternative to the building of flats and I would like to see them built. I think the ideal way of building flats is for the corporation or authority to clear about five acres and make a unit of that space. They have then to provide the necessary amenities such as a common garden or courtyard, and lifts and, possibly even a laundry and that kind of thing. If they do that, they can make a good job of it. I am not saying that even then the flats would be equal to the ordinary private single cottages but they represent the best that can be done in the circumstances. From a common-sense point of view, the authorities must try to make the best of the centres of our cities where all this demolition has taken place and if the Minister had given them a little more generous assistance on those lines they could have made a good job of it.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Duncan: I support the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Marshall) on the question of flats. I am all in favour of flats where it is necessary to build on valuable land. Naturally, I agree, any one would rather live in a cottage if it could be economically built. I rise, however, to give the Committee a concrete instance of how this Clause will work in my own constituency. I think it is a tribute to my right hon. Friend that he has worked out the details of the Schedule in such a way that it will have an effect of giving more money to those who are building flats, enabling them to provide more amenities and to reduce rents. A voluntary housing association in my constituency had prepared plans to build 45 flats but the work was not sufficiently advanced to warrant a subsidy under the 1930 Act. The plans were worked out, however, and the figures show that the subsidy payable from the Exchequer under the 1930 Act would be £917 a year and the rate contribution £168 a year or a total of £1,085 in respect of the 45 flats. Now my borough council is being asked next Tuesday to accept, and the committee concerned has recommended the acceptance of the alteration in the subsidy arrangements which is to take effect under this Clause. The effect is that instead of a contribution from the Exchequer of £917, there will be a contribution of £1,085 and a rate contribution of £540, making a total of £1,625 a year, an


increase, compared with the existing Act, of £535 a year which this voluntary housing association will be able to use for increased amenities and also for reduction of rents. I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend for making it possible to help North Kensington in that way.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I think it would be worth while to add a word on the question of flats.

The Chairman: I am not complaining of the hon. Member, but it has just occurred to me to warn the Committee that I have been rather lax and must now be careful not to allow this to develop into a wide general Debate upon the question of flats. I give that warning to the hon. Member.

Mr. Silverman: I had no intention of engaging in a wide general debate. On the contrary, I intended to point out that the wide general debate has no application to what the Committee is concerned with, namely the purely technical question of how some local authorities are to deal with their slum clearance and overcrowding problems. The point I desire to make is that in a city like Liverpool if you were to debar the authority—I know it is not suggested—from trying to deal with the problem by building flats, then the City of Liverpool might as well scrap its slum clearance and overcrowding programmes for ever. Here you have in the heart of a great city and on the most valuable land the worst slums in this country. I say that without the slightest qualification or modification of any kind. The Liverpool-housing problem is worse than any other with which I am acquainted. The Liverpool Corporation has for the last quarter of a century been making thousands of pounds a year profit, after paying rates and other charges such as repairs and insurance out of houses that its own medical officer has condemned as not fit for human habitation. The medical officer gave a certificate which would have entitled the Corporation, if those houses belonged to a private landlord to confiscate the property of that landlord with no compensation beyond the site value.
I do not say that some progress is not being made but the only way progress can

be made in these circumstances is by building blocks of flats of the modern type. The hon. Baronet the Member for South-East Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) told the Committee of his experience. He said he had been responsible for building a magnificent block of buildings and where he expected gratitude he got only curses and criticism. It is nice sometimes to know the other side of the question. I remember going to inspect a newly-built block of flats and being shown round by a tenant who had not been there for more than a week or two. She had come from one or two rooms in a broken-down slum house. She showed me from room to room in the flat, wandering about in a dream, quite unable to realise that she was there at all and that this little habitation was actually hers and not a dream of fairyland. She was unable to appreciate it, being almost delirious with happiness. That is different from the experience of the hon. Baronet. In Liverpool on these sites it is necessary to deal with casual dock labourers, most of them unemployed for most of the time. You could not take them to the suburbs and endeavour to give them small houses, because they would have to travel eight or nine miles twice a day to the Employment Exchange in order to sign on. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Twice a day?"] Really the hon. Member must remember I am dealing with my native city. Certainly there would be Employment Exchanges nearer to the outskirts but I am dealing with casual dock labourers who have to sign on at the docks and have to be available there twice a day. If you were to compel them to go to the outskirts the whole of their unemployment benefit would go in fares.

The Chairman: The hon. Member resisted temptation in one direction, but I am afraid he is now yielding to it in another.

Mr. Silverman: That is only another instance of how impossible it would be to do anything else in relief of overcrowding. The people have to be rehoused on the existing sites, and if they are overcrowded in their present dwellings, it means that you must have more dwellings at the same place, and the only way you can do that is to go higher into the air.

Mr. Quibell: It suits the landlords.

Mr. Silverman: I know, but it suits the people. It does not suit them as well as the cottage and a quarter acre each of which an hon. Member spoke earlier. But you cannot give thousands of people in the centre of Liverpool each a cottage and a quarter acre when some of the land costs £3,000,000 an acre.

Hon. Members: £3,000,000 an acre?

The Chairman: Even if it is that price, I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we cannot go into a discussion upon it now.

Mr. Silverman: I will speak to hon. Members privately about it if they like, but I can assure them that my figures are correct. There is considerable force in the argument with regard to an extra subsidy where the land is of greater value, but a warning must go with it. If there is a quicker way than another to enhance the value of land, it is to let the owner know in advance that the more valuable it is the greater the subsidy that will come from the Ministry when the local authority wishes to buy it. The question of the value of land in the centre of cities will have to be tackled. It is no use regarding the housing problem as though houses are built in the air. They are built on the land, and we cannot for ever go on attempting to deal with the problems of overcrowding and slums without addressing our minds to the underlying and fundamental problem of the value of the land on which rehousing is to take place. Neither the method suggested in the Bill nor the Amendment deals with that matter.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I oppose this Clause on the ground that it contains no special provision for the Special Areas, which find themselves with a heavy housing problem. I raised the matter when the Measure was before the House on Second Reading, and I was requested to do so by a representative conference in county Durham. I have just received a telegram from the Secretary, in which he points out that the overcrowding problem in Durham is too severe to be met by the reduced subsidy and expresses the hope that it will be possible to move an Amendment—which, I am advised, it is not possible to do—to deal with the special circumstances of county Durham. I will set out the position of that county

in order that, if it be possible subsequently, the Minister may make some provision to deal with this almost unique situation. The Minister has been made aware of the position by a strong deputation which attended the Ministry last week, when we were promised sympathetic consideration, of which, so far, there has been no evidence. County Durham is faced with 40,000 overcrowded families and 10,000 families who are living in slum areas. It is a county of small houses, and rates to the extent of 90.5 per cent. are borne by them and the small shopkeepers. Industrial hereditaments bear only 7.6 owing to the operation of the Derating Act, while transport, which in many areas is a substantial asset to local authorities, bears only 1.7 per cent.

The Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Member is about to make a speech which I cannot admit to be in order on this Clause. I must ask him to consider carefully what is in the Clause and to realise that it does not deal with the Special Areas but with more general housing problems.

Mr. Adams: I am giving an illustration why I cannot support the Clause and am trying to point out that it is because of the lack of provision for Special Areas.

The Chairman: The hon. Member may have very excellent reasons for wishing to vote against the Clause, but it does not necessarily follow that the exposition of his views and ideas is in order in a Debate on it.

Mr. Adams: I do not know whether I shall be in order in stating the effect of the reduced subsidy upon County Durham. The loss to the county will amount to £270,000 a year for 40 years. That is a situation which the county is unable to face. We are advised that if houses are to be built under this Measure the rentals will have to be increased by 2s. to 2s. 6d. per week. The financial situation in the county is such that at the beginning of this financial year the rates will have to be increased by 1s. 8d. in the £. There is a situation in that Special Area which must have special treatment, and in the name of the conference which represented all the authorities in the administrative county, I say that houses will not be built under this Measure in County Durham unless special financial facilities are granted to meet the remarkable situation in which the county finds itself.

5.38 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: In regard to the issue of flats as against houses, I would prefer to rest upon the statement which I made on-Second Reading, which I think received general acceptance. It was this:
The Government's policy is that we shall continue to encourage the building of cottages where practicable and the building of flats where it is essential to provide rehousing accommodation in such places as the centres of large towns, and where it is impracticable and uneconomical to build cottages. In practice, therefore, the question of whether flats or cottages should be built on a particular site is determined by housing needs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1938; col. 1736, Vol. 331]
I share the view that generally a cottage is preferable, but there are a number of places, such as Liverpool and London, where obviously flats must be built. Apart from other considerations that have been mentioned, one that occurs to me is that, especially in places like Liverpool, people must live near their work, and that, whatever transport there is, they cannot, owing to the nature of their work, be away for long periods from the places where they work. The Government naturally desire to encourage the wish to build cottages, but there are places, especially in big cities, where flats have to be built as well. I would like to answer a question put to me by one or two members with regard to the financial provision so far as the completion of houses is concerned. I stated on the Second Reading:
Under the Act of 1936 financial assistance at the rates now in operation is provided for houses completed by 31st March, 1938, and in order to secure continuity of work I announced some months ago that the proposals to be laid before Parliament would include provision for payment of the present rates of subsidy for houses completed by 31st December, 1938, which was an extension of nine months…. Broadly, the arrangement proposed in the Bill is that houses completed not later than 31st December, 1938, will rank for subsidies fixed by the Acts of 1930 and 1935, and those finished after that date will rank for the subsidies fixed by this Bill. But the House will appreciate that certain transitional provisions are needed because of the change-over from one subsidy to another, and power is taken in Clause 10 to pay the subsidies for houses built in respect of the abatement of overcrowding or the general needs of the agricultural population included in contracts entered into after the introduction of the Bill, notwithstanding that the houses are finished before 31st December, 1938."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1938; cols. 1730–1, Vol. 331.]

That is the provision in the Bill, and since then the matter has again been put to me in the case of a number—not a very large number—of authorities who have already proceeded with their overcrowding programme, and naturally they would like to have the extra subsidy which is being given in this Bill. I am afraid, however, that I cannot go beyond the provisions in the Clause. I am not decrying in any way the work that these authorities have done because they are proceeding so well with their overcrowding programmes. But I must remind hon. Members that in the case of nearly all those authorities they have a light slum clearance programme. They have not had to face the very heavy programme which many local authorities have had to face. It is because of their very heavy slum programme that many local authorities have had to concentrate on work under that programme. They have not been able on that account to proceed with their overcrowding programmes.

Mr. A. Henderson: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that an overcrowding programme involving the construction of 465 houses in a borough with a population of less than 50,000 is a light programme?

Sir K. Wood: I do not say that that is not the case, but I must rest my reply on this main principle. It is a material matter when one has to have regard to financial considerations and the claims of other local authorities. The provision in the Bill already represents a concession to local authorities by allowing an earlier date to operate for that one of the two subsidies where amalgamation represents an increase, because of the Exchequer contribution. The Amendment would admit for the new subsidy houses on which the local authorities commenced work on the basis of the existing Act long before they had any knowledge of a prospective increase in subsidies, and I think that I have gone as far as I can be reasonably expected to go in providing for the higher rate of subsidy to apply to houses for which contracts were signed after 2nd February.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: If that argument is sound, is it not equally sound that the Minister, on the other hand, is doing a wrong thing in cutting the slum clearance grants to local authorities which have been active?

Sir K. Wood: I think I have endeavoured to hold the balance pretty fairly in this matter. As regards the point of view which the hon. Member put, I think that I have met that in considerable measure by saying that the new subsidy shall apply to houses in respect of overcrowding which were included in contracts signed after the introduction of the Bill, and I regret that I cannot go further. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) drew attention to the words,
If the Minister so determines.
Those are words which are inserted solely with the object of requiring the Minister to see that the conditions in the Bill have been, in fact fulfilled, and I would give him and all the local authorities concerned the undertaking that I shall, without hesitation, put the Clause into operation when the conditions specified have not been complied with. That is a usual form of protection which is put in, and there is no intention on my part, nor would there be, I am sure, on the part of anyone who occupied my office, of interfering on any other grounds.
As to the conditions in the area which the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) has so much at heart, I think he will find, so far as the overcrowding programme in that area is concerned, that considerable extra financial assistance will be forthcoming, and that in respect of the two programmes which the local authorities contemplate the financial provisions will enable that very important part of the country to proceed with its housing operations. I would remind him that the area will get a considerable measure of assistance from the North Eastern Housing Association, to which many local authorities are looking. I hope that with these two measures of assistance there will be an improvement of housing conditions in the hon. Member's constituency.

Mr. David Adams: In short, nothing extra is to be done there.

Sir K. Wood: I do not like to enter into controversy with the hon. Member, who is always so fair, but there is an association there which is prepared to build houses on better terms, I think, than in any other part of the country and without the local authority having to make any demands upon the rates, and

as I have so often urged upon him and his friends, both in the House and in the areas concerned, they would do well to turn for assistance to that association.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Greenwood: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has not convinced my hon. Friend that the North Eastern Housing Association will furnish any answer to the problem. What is perfectly clear is that a large number of local authorities, not merely those on the north-east coast, are very much perturbed at the financial prospects which will confront them when this Bill is on the Statute Book. I do not want to enter into an elaborate statement about flats in contrast with houses. The right hon. Gentleman has made provision for both. Whether we like it or not we have to face the fact that if people in the large congested areas must, or prefer to, live near to their work then the provisions made for housing them must run on vertical lines rather than be spread out horizontally. If they prefer to give some of their leisure to travelling, and are prepared to face the transport charges, which I understood the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) wished to see abolished, they will spread out. It is clear, however, that we cannot now find any simple solution of the problem either on the lines of cottages or of flats, and it is the duty of local authorities to provide the type of housing accommodation which, on a balance of advantages, the people prefer. Some would prefer flats and others cottages.
I should like to return to the question of when the present subsidy for houses comes to an end. If one kind of subsidy is to be dropped in favour of another obviously there must be some fixed date, but in the present situation, with many local authorities in arrears with the programmes to which they are committed, a fair amount of time ought to be allowed them to complete those programmes, which have been approved by the right hon. Gentleman, before the reduced subsidy begins to operate. Seeing that he is cutting the subsidy so very substantially it would be only fair to those local authorities who have been pressing ahead with housing and have got commitments to allow them a longer time than he is prepared to give.
My last point concerns a subject which was raised on the Amendment moved by


the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd). At the end of that discussion the right hon. Gentleman rose with a seraphic smile, but it changed into a look of absolute bewilderment, and one felt there was a touch of emotion about him when he said that he wanted to convince the Committee that he really would look into this problem. I submit that there we have a very serious problem, and I warn the right hon. Gentleman that if he does not look into it a little more favourably his seraphic smile will not save him on Report stage. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled, if he chooses, as I did myself, to make provision for people in special categories, but he is not entitled to do this wangle on the housing revenue account by regarding certain of our rural authorities as operating in purely agricultural areas. That is wrong, and hon. Members on all sides of the Committee have expressed that view, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise the justice of the case of putting all authorities on the same footing as regards the additional grant in Sub-section (2). The difficulty will not be met by the provision that he is making, and he is doing grave injustice to those big authorities which suffer from the sort of limitations with which he has tried to deal.

CLAUSE 2.—(Contributions in respect of agricultural housing accommodation provided by rural district councils.)

5.55 p.m.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: I beg to move, in page 4, line 3, to leave out "rural," and to insert "county."
There are a good many other Amendments standing in the name of my hon. Friends and myself, not only to this Clause but also to Clauses 3 and 7, which are consequential upon this one, and I hope we shall be enabled to have the discussion now, so that later they may be simply moved. I think the object of the Amendment is clear, and has been very well explained by hon. Members on all sides of the Committee and especially by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte). He explained that while the cottages on one side of a road adjoining an urban area might be drawing agricultural

subsidy, cottages on the other side of the road might be more convenient for the agricultural workers, but, being in an urban district, they would not be entitled to the subsidy. It was also argued that in some cases cottages in a borough as well as those in a rural district should be entitled to the rural subsidy of £10 for 14 years, provided they were for agricultural labourers and fulfilled the conditions in the Bill. The Minister saw our various Amendments on the point and suggested that a way out could be found by introducing the word "county" to replace the other designations, and we have joined together in putting our names to these Amendments, and I very much hope that he will be pleased to accept them.

5.57 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: This Amendment and a large number of other Amendments standing in the name of the same hon. Members are intended to extend the higher rates of subsidy payable for houses provided for the agricultural population to such populations in urban districts and non-county boroughs. It is true that the Bill, as drafted, limited this subsidy to rural districts, on the view that the existence of an agricultural population in such districts was a more permanent characteristic of the district and that with the more limited number of agricultural workers to be found in urban areas there was by no means the same certainty that the houses would continue to be required for such persons during the period of the subsidy. There are, however, certain districts other than rural districts where the agricultural population is a substantial factor in the situation, and after considering the matter I have decided that where that is the case it would be equitable to give urban districts and non-county boroughs the benefit of the higher subsidy for houses for persons engaged in agriculture. For these reasons, I would advise the Committee to accept the Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

5.59 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: I beg to move, in page 4, line 33, to leave out from "population" to the end of the Sub-section.
I do not move this Amendment with the idea of pressing it, but in order to get an explanation from the Minister of what he expects to happen under this


part of the Sub-section. It is obvious that if the houses are not required for the agricultural population they must be used by someone else if they are not to be left empty. I should like to know whether such houses can be let to other people; whether postmen or others engaged in other industries in an agricultural area can have these houses, or whether they are to be confined to those who are earning more or less the same wages as men engaged in agricultural operations. Will preference be given to those who are working in trades relating to agriculture, and are the houses to be reserved for people who are earning the same sort of money as the agricultural population earn?

6.1 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: I am glad to give to my hon. and gallant Friend the explanation that he requires. The Clause as drafted follows the course of Section 85 (4) of the Act of 1936. The Amendment seeks to compel rural district councils to reserve for the agricultural population a number of houses equal to that on which agricultural subsidy is paid, for the full 40-year period of that subsidy. The purpose of the words which the Amendment seeks to leave out is to make this reservation of cottages unnecessary in the event of any marked change taking place in the character of the district. You must make some provision for a change of that kind, because it is by no means impossible that some areas which are now predominantly agricultural will become industrial before the period of 40 years is over. I do not expect that there will be many such cases, but it would be unreasonable to reserve cottages for the agricultural population when such a population may have ceased to exist.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made:

In page 5, line 2, after "and," insert "Sub-section (2) of Section eighty-nine and."

In line 4, leave out from the second "the," to "to," in line 5, and insert "references in those Sub-sections."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Greenwood: I do not understand the attitude of mind of the right hon. Gentleman towards the Clause. He has accepted a series of Amendments, the result of which will be that other authorities than rural district councils will be able to enjoy the benefits of the grant for agricultural workers' houses. I am not opposed to that, but I object to the inclusion only of the agricultural population. In the Housing Act of 1924 we spoke of the agricultural population, but we were not concerned whether they were working on the land, so long as they were people of that kind of status. The Housing (Rural Authorities) Act, 1931, applied to rural authorities, and did not limit the assistance, which was given there upon special conditions, to people who happened to be land workers. The right hon. Gentleman now stands by the Housing Act, 1936. The agricultural population is defined in Clause 115 as:
Persons whose employment or latest employment is or was employment in agriculture or in an industry mainly dependent upon agriculture.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Those are the words in the right hon. Gentleman's own Housing Act of 1930, Section 34 (2), copied word for word.

Mr. Greenwood: I am coming to that point—as a matter of fact I have already dealt with it. The right hon. Gentleman has taken that Section, and his special assistance is not to be given to people who are living in rural areas, but to people who follow the industry of agriculture. That will do a great disservice, and will not be an aid, to the housing of the people in the countryside. You could not now find an agricultural parish where the big majority of the workers were actually agricultural workers. Our villages are slowly being industrialised, as the right hon. Gentleman has admitted within the last five minutes. I mentioned—and it is within everybody's knowledge—the kind of people who now populate our rural areas. The cottages of the agricultural workers may be pretty bad, but most of the agricultural workers are housed. One of the difficulties now is the case of the man who works at a garage in the village street. People like that have to live miles away from their work, and the right hon. Gentleman is doing nothing for them. To say, "I am going to be generous in the provision of


a grant for the houses of agricultural workers, and that will thereby enable me to deal with the other problem," is either a fraud on the agricultural workers or a fraud on the other people who are not agricultural workers. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Though one cannot vote against Clause 2 standing part of the Bill, I must press the point of view, as was pressed during the discussion of Clause I, that the right hon. Gentleman ought not to make a provision in this way which has no regard for the changing economic circumstances of our time which he has himself admitted.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Turton: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has just delivered himself of a very remarkable speech. His party have put themselves forward in certain parts of the country as friendly to the agricultural workers. We are losing the agricultural workers from the countryside at the moment because they have not proper housing conditions, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is trying to put that position right. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield objects. It is an extraordinary position. I would remind him that two out of five agricultural workers are leaving agriculture between the ages of 25 and 40 because they have not proper houses. [HON. MEMBERS: "Proper wages."] If you open Clause 2, as the right hon. Gentleman wishes, to all trades in the rural district, it means that those with better wages will drive the agricultural workers out of their cottages. I hope that my right hon. Friend will retain the position of this Clause.
I really rose to ask the Minister a question about Clause 2. In the Second Reading Debate, talking about the Clause, he said:
I also hope that it will be possible for suitable out-buildings to be provided and that arrangements may be possible to meet the needs of tenants for garden plots and the keeping of poultry and pigs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1938; col. 1739, Vol. 331.]
In the evidence given before the subcommittee on Rural Housing it was made clear by the rural district councils that their view was that this should not happen. If the Minister will refer to page 22 of the report he will find these words:

Rural district councils generally are opposed to the keeping of chickens by tenants as being a fruitful source of bad feeling and of irritation between neighbours.

Mr. E. Smith: Hear, hear.

Mr. Turton: I am surprised that the hon. Member wishes to deprive the agricultural labourer of keeping poultry. I advise him not to utter those words in agricultural districts or he will find himself rather unpopular. I know that he will take great care about that. Many district councils have unfortunately passed by-laws that prohibit the keeping of all poultry, and in some cases of all pigeons. It would be very unfortunate if this Clause operated to stop the tenants of these houses keeping poultry to add to their incomes or a few pigeons to indulge in the sport of either fancying or racing. I hope that the Minister will take some active steps when the Bill becomes law to secure that those by-laws are repealed, and that as long as the keeping of poultry and pigeons does not constitute a legal nuisance under the Public Health Acts tenants will be allowed to keep them. I hope that he will make it clear to rural district councils that the Government and the country generally do not look with favour upon preventing tenants of council houses from keeping poultry and pigeons, or even pigs.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Acland: Is one right in assuming that the effect of the Amendments which the Minister accepted on this Clause is to transfer the whole administration of the Measure from rural district councils to the counties? If people are really anxious that houses should be built and that advantage should be taken of the Bill as quickly as possible in their areas, which authorities have they to go and see? Should they see their county councillors or their rural district councillors? I understand that the answer is that they should see their rural district councillors, in spite of the Amendments in which we have substituted the county for the rural district. I should be pleased if the Minister woiuld tell us how this procedure will work. Are the rural district councils still left in control, and are they still able to take the initiative in spite of the Amendments that we have just made? Who are the houses for? The Minister says that they are for the agricultural


population. I am sorry to find that we are not able to move Amendments on the question of who is the agricultural population, which was defined, I believe, in the Financial Resolution. I hope that that definition was not in contravention of the undertaking that Financial Resolutions would be drafted as clearly as possible. I understand that the definition is:
Persons who are engaged in agriculture or in an industry mainly dependent upon agriculture.
Will the Minister give us his view as to whether the definition will include roadmen working on rural district council roads at wages almost identical with those of agricultural workers? If it will not, it is a great pity. I wonder whether the Minister will look into this aspect of the matter to see wheher there is any way, in spite of the Financial Resolution, of extending the definition to cover the class of person mentioned by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), earning wages on or about the agricultural rate.
My last point is that the Minister should make clear how Sub-section (2) will work. What is meant by the words "shall secure"? I appreciate that the words are part of some other Act and that I ought to know how they are working in that Act, but I do not know. Suppose three houses are built in a village and, for one reason or another, you cannot get more than three houses. In accordance with the intention of this Measure, there are put into those houses three agricultural labourers. Suppose the demand for accommodation for agricultural labourers is still unmet and that, none the less, there cannot be any more houses. What will happen if those three agricultural labourers next week get jobs on the road, in a garage or in some shop? What is the process by which the county council will secure that the intention of the Sub-section is carried out? It seems to me to be important to know how it is to be done. If it is not to be done by turning out those people if they should cease to be agricultural labourers, how is it going to be done? Perhaps, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot give an answer at once, he will consider the matter between now and Report.

6.16 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: With regard to the question of poultry keeping and matters of that kind, I will endeavour to influence the local authorities in the direction suggested, and I am not unhopeful that they will accept the advice of the Minister, as they have often done in the past. I can quite understand that disputes arise from time to time between neighbours with regard to these matters, and that, no doubt, is what has induced a good many local authorities to make by-laws for the purpose of keeping peace among people living together; but I think there are considerable advantages in encouraging people in this direction if it does not involve annoyance to their neighbours. I shall, no doubt, be consulted by the associations of local authorities concerned on matters of this kind arising out of the Bill, and will take an opportunity of taking the matter up with them, as I shall in the case of other matters as soon as the Act is on the Statute Book.
As to the question of definition, the special assistance which is now proposed is really to be given because of the real need for new houses at rents within the means of agricultural workers, and I think it will be generally agreed that, as regards both overcrowding and the rehousing of slum tenants, it is better that the definition should be based on the occupation of the person for whom the house is provided than upon wages. I do not want to criticise what has been done in the past, because everyone has done his best, but I think it can fairly be said that the basis previously taken in connection with the housing of agricultural workers has not been a good one, and that, although in some cases considerable and expensive Exchequer assistance has been given, a relatively small proportion of the houses concerned are in fact occupied by agricultural workers. It is in view of these facts that we have followed the definition laid down in the Act of 1930, and also in the Act of 1935. The whole object of this Bill is really to assist directly the agricultural labourer, not only from the point of view of housing, but from the point of view of helping the agricultural industry generally.
As to the questions put to me by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland), I should like, if he will allow me, to look into his third question a little


more closely, as it is a rather technical matter of administration, but, as regards the first two, this Amendment which I am accepting does not in any way interfere with the administration of the Act by a particular local authority; it is simply an extension of the Measure to other local authorities, and does not mean that the administration will be taken out of the hands of the rural district council. As to whether roadmen would come within the definition, I am informed that they would not. I think it might be fair to say that the wages of many roadmen are higher than those of people working on the land. I think I have dealt with all the questions that have been put to me, and I hope that the Committee will now feel able to agree to the Clause.

CLAUSE 3.—(Contributions in respect of agricultural housing accommodation provided by private enterprise.)

Amendment made: In page 5, line 7, leave out "rural," and insert "county."—[Brigadier-General Clifton Brown.]

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Price: I beg to move, in page 5, line 7, to leave out "are satisfied," and to insert "prove to the satisfaction of the Minister."
The object of this Amendment is to make the Clause somewhat less objectionable than it otherwise would be. Under the Clause, the rural district council may abrogate their powers to private persons; that is to say, private persons may become eligible to get the subsidy which otherwise would go to the district council. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that, if we retain this principle, to which personally I object, there should at least be satisfactory control by the Minister of Health himself. Under the Clause, the Minister is empowered to impose certain very desirable conditions—for instance, that the cottages shall be reserved for members of the agricultural population; that the rent shall not exceed a certain figure; and that the house shall be suitable in size and construction. My object is to widen this control so that a private person shall not be allowed to receive a subsidy under the Bill unless the Minister is satisfied that the rural

district council is not in a position to provide the houses required. A great objection to the Clause is that certain district councils who are not enterprising in this matter might be inclined to leave the construction of houses to private persons, who would receive the subsidy. I wish to stop this gap, and, if the principle is to be allowed, to provide that the Minister himself shall decide that the district council is not in a position to provide the houses, and that, therefore, private persons should be allowed to get the subsidy. In other words, I desire to tighten up the provisions of the Clause, which in all other respects I find exceedingly objectionable.

6.26 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): In the view of my right hon. Friend, this Amendment would make the whole procedure more complicated. Under the Clause as drafted, local authorities have to satisfy themselves, in the light of their own knowledge of local conditions, that there are special circumstances in which the building of houses by the method suggested is advisable, and my right hon. Friend thinks that this is eminently a case in which the proposal ought to be considered in the light of the knowledge which the local authorities themselves possess. If the Minister had to satisfy himself on these points, it would be likely to involve a measure of inquiry, which could only result in delay and expense incommensurate, in our judgment, with the fact that such proposals would in the majority of cases relate to a single house. The hon. Member has himself pointed out that conditions are to be imposed on a number of important issues. The reservation of the houses for the agricultural population, the level of the rents, and suitability of size and structure. My right hon. Friend is of opinion that, when these conditions have been satisfied, the decision on the individual proposal ought to be left to the local authority, in accordance with the practice adopted when grants were made available to private persons building houses under the Acts of 1923 and 1924. The proposal of the present Amendment seems to indicate a certain distrust of local authorities, which my right hon. Friend certainly does not share. For these reasons he is unable to accept the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 136.

Division No. 115.]
AYES.
[6.28 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Pilkington, R.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Errington, E.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Procter, Major H. A.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fildes, Sir H.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Apsley, Lord
Findlay, Sir E.
Ramsbotham, H.


Asks, Sir R. W.
Fleming, E. L.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Assheton, R.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Furness, S. N.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Rowlands, G.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Beechman, N. A.
Guinness, T. L. E. B
Russell, Sir Alexander


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Bernays, R. H.
Harbord, A.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Salmon, Sir I.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Blair, Sir R.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hepworth, J.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Bossom, A. C.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Savery, Sir Servington


Boulton, W. W.
Higgs, W. F.
Selley, H. R.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Holdsworth, H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Holmes, J. S.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Bull, B. B.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Keeling, E. H.
Spens, W. P.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Storey, S.


Channon, H.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Christie, J. A.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Leech, Sir J. W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Lees-Jones, J.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Tate, Mavis C.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Levy, T.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J,
Lewis, O.
Touche, G. C.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Liddall, W. S.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Lipson, D. L.
Turton, R. H.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lloyd, G. W.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Critchley, A.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
McKie, J. H.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Crooks, Sir J. S.
Macquisten, F. A.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Magnay, T.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Cross, R. H.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Crossley, A. C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Markham, S. F.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Dawson, Sir P.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


De Chair, S. S.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Morgan, R. H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Doland, G. F.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wragg, H.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Eastwood, J. F.
Munro, P.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Eckersley, P. T.
Nail, Sir J.



Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J,
Captain Dugdale and Mr.


Ellis, Sir G.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Grimston.


Elmley, Viscount
Palmar, G. E. H.





NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Banfield, J. W.
Bevan, A.


Adamson, W. M.
Barr, J.
Bromfield, W.


Ammon, C. G.
Batey, J.
Brown, C. (Mansfield)




Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Buchanan, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Burke, W. A.
Hollins, A.
Ridley, G.


Cape, T.
Hopkin, D.
Riley, B.


Charleton, H. C.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Ritson, J.


Chater, D.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Cluse, W. S.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Cocks, F. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kirby, B. V.
Shinwell, E.


Daggar, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Silkin, L.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Silverman, S. S.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lathan, G.
Simpson, F. B.


Day, H.
Lawson, J. J.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Dobbie, W.
Leach, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lee, F.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees, (K'ly)


Ede, J. C.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Logan, D. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stephen, C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Foot, D. M.
McGhee, H. G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Frankel, D.
MacLaren, A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Gardner, B. W.
Maclean, N.
Thorne, W.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Tinker, J. J.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Marshall, F.
Tomlinson, G.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Mathers, G.
Viant, S. P.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A
Maxton, J.
Walker, J.


Grenfell, D. R.
Messer, F.
Watkins, F. C.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Montague, F.
Watson, W. McL.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Muff, G.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Hardie, Agnes
Parker, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Parkinson, J. A.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Hayday, A.
Pearson, A.



Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Price, M. P.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.

6.37 p.m.

Major Mills: I beg to move, in page 5, line 8, to leave out "owing to special circumstances," and to insert "in any particular case."
My hon. Friends and I put this Amendment down because we think that the words in the Clause "special circumstances" add nothing to the safeguards contained later, but might be held to be intentionally limiting words and might incline an over-exact and over-scrupulous council to argue and haggle over what exactly constitutes "special circumstances," and decline an application because they failed to agree. Suppose, for instance, such a council got a request to build a single cottage on an isolated farm and they thought that they could not build there themselves, yet if they were asked to let the owner build there and receive the subsidy, they might say, "It is true that this is the only case we have before us now, but our district is large and we might get 20 or 30 other applications; we cannot, therefore, say that there are special circumstances." Through their desire to be scrupulous in carrying out the Act, they might refuse, and so defeat the intentions of the Clause. This is almost a drafting Amendment.

[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There are plenty of safeguards in the Clause. The council must first be satisfied that accommodation can be more conveniently provided by someone other than themselves, and then,
subject to any conditions imposed by the Minister"—
and I want to lay emphasis on that word "imposed"—they may, of their own free will, make such arrangements as seem good to them with the person who is going to provide the accommodation. Finally, the Minister has to be satisfied that arrangements made will carry out the intentions of the Clause.
We have already proved that similar words in a Statute can give rise to confusion. In the Section of the Road Traffic Act which deals with penalties for careless driving the words "special reasons" have been differently interpreted by different benches of magistrates; so much so, that, if my memory serves me rightly, the Home Office had to issue a special circular to magistrates dealing with that. My hon. Friends and I desire to insert "in any particular case," in order to make it clear that each case must be dealt with separately and on its merits.


There is no question of passing or refusing to pass a general resolution that the council is satisfied; but when the council is satisfied in a particular case that private enterprise can more conveniently—and, indeed, more cheaply, as far as they are concerned—provide the required accommodation, all the safeguards set out in the Clause come into play, to carry out the intentions of the Government, which are: to provide good and suitable houses for the agricultural worker at a rent which he can afford to pay—and houses which will be kept in good repair. I think that this Amendment gets us back very close to the very practical views expressed in paragraph 24 of the second report of the Rural Housing Sub-Committee. Finally, I think that the wording we suggest will make it still more certain that those small commoners in the New Forest and the Forest of Dean, to whom my right hon. Friend referred in his Second Reading speech as possibly desiring to build for themselves, will, with the help of the subsidy, get the chance to fulfil their ambition.

Sir K. Wood: I am prepared to accept this Amendment.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I do not think the Committee can let the Minister get away with it like that. Are we to understand that he accepts all the arguments put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman? It is usual, when the Minister accepts an Amendment on which a reasoned speech has been made, to indicate on which of the reasons he bases his acceptance. On this side, we regard the whole of the Clause with the greatest misgivings, and our misgivings are increased by the alteration the Minister now proposes to accept. I do not envisage the kind of council meeting that the hon. and gallant Member has mentioned to us. I am thinking of the kind of rural district council which consists very largely of landowners: where these proposals for the building of cottages will not be brought forward after the rural council have considered the matter and decided that they cannot build, but where they are put up by the landowners straight away. The rural council will say: "If the landowner is prepared to do it, why should we trouble?" To put in the words "owing to special circumstances" seems to strengthen that point of view considerably.

There must be some reason which makes the Minister so ready to accept the Amendment and I should like to know why he has preferred the form of words put forward by this simple soldier, instead of the form of words that the Government draftsmen have originally suggested. It is not usual to prefer military to civil wording in a housing Bill.
This Clause may lead, unless especial care is exercised, to a considerable increase in what we on this side regard as the evil of the tied cottage in various parts of England. The Minister, in his Second Reading speech, suggested that this was intended to deal with the case of stockmen and people of that kind, who it was desired should be housed on or near the farms where they work. That kind of case will be well covered by the phrase "owing to special circumstances." The alteration which has been made this afternoon seems to get as far away from the idea that it is only the stockmen for whom cottages are required, and we are entitled to a more expanded explanation on the part of the right hon. Gentleman before we allow this Amendment to pass.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I would like the Minister to explain a little more fully the intention of these words. He originally referred to the matter in his Second Reading speech, and we were to understand that it was only to be in exceptional circumstances that this Clause was to be used. I fear that the Amendment may weaken the Clause by opening the door in some areas where the rural district council, for many possible reasons, might prefer not to carry out its duties. It will be possible for it to put upon the landlord the whole duty of housing the rural population under this Measure. That would turn the provisions of the Bill not into provisions for providing for the district councils to house the rural population, but for giving the subsidy to landowners in the district. I should very much regret that. The Clause is vague enough as it is, and some of us would have liked to have found means of expanding and strengthening the phrase "special circumstances" rather than to sweep it away.
There is another Amendment on the Paper showing the tendency of certain hon. Members to remove that part of the Clause which makes it subject to cond-


itions imposed by the Minister. If that Amendment were to be called and passed it would entirely change what we have been informed was the intention of this Clause. The Minister informed us in his Second Reading speech that this was to be an exceptional case. We are entitled, if the Minister accepts this Amendment, to ask him to consider the question of whether, and in what way, he would be able to prevent the district council from passing on the whole of the liability for carrying out this Measure. There are district councils which have been very slow indeed in carrying out their duties under the various Housing Acts, and if they can respond to any application made by local landowners merely by passing on the subsidy, I fear that the whole intention of this Clause will be misused.

6.49 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: If the hon. Gentleman will read the Clause with the Amendment suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend he will see that his apprehensions are not justified. It is a matter of interpretation, and I think that the insertion of the suggested phrase will prevent any such general determination as he has indicated. The Clause, as amended, will read:
Where the council of a rural district are satisfied that in any particular case housing accommodation required for members of the agricultural population of the district"—
and these are the operating words—
could more conveniently be provided by some person other than the council, they may, subject to any conditions imposed by the Minister, make arrangements for the provision of such accommodation by that person.
I pause there for a moment to observe that the insertion of these words will occasion no such apprehension either on one side or the other. My hon. and gallant Friend apprehended that there might be some general resolution passed by a local authority which would say that it would have nothing whatever to do with private enterprise. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken apprehended a resolution being passed to hand it over to the private owner. Both these objections are removed by this Amendment because it lays the necessity upon the council to consider each case on its merits and not to deal with the matter in the general terms suggested in the Bill. There need be no apprehension

either on the part of my hon. and gallant Friend, on the one hand, or of the hon. Gentleman on the other. The Amendment, for what it is worth, is to provide that each case shall be considered separately by the local authority.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Greenwood: It is just what I expected. This really does not mean anything—for what it is worth. It is a matter of no importance. I do not think that it is a matter of very much importance, but, on the whole, I prefer the words in the Bill rather than those of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman is giving nothing away in this Amendment, but our objections still remain. If we are to have this method of dealing with the problem of rural housing, I would rather have it carried out where there were special circumstances, and I should like to see those circumstances defined. The right hon. Gentleman does not define them, and now he says, "in any particular case," without any special circumstances of any kind.

Captain Heilgers: Would the right hon. Gentleman define the special circumstances which are in his mind?

Mr. Greenwood: I do not want this Clause at all. I cannot conceive the special circumstances which would warrant the local authority farming out its responsibility to private enterprise. I am only saying that, if this method is to be chosen, there should be special circumstances which ought to be defined in the Bill. My argument is, that the words in the Bill, though not very acceptable to me, are more acceptable than the words "in any particular case" irrespective of circumstances, where the rural district council likes to farm out the provision of its cottages. The right hon. Gentleman either ought to make a real concession or stand by the terms of the Bill. He has been working on this Bill for weeks, perhaps for months, and has had the help of his legal advisers, and then, half a dozen hon. and gallant Members of this House, whose legal knowledge is unknown to me, put down an Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman considers to be better than the terms of his Bill. I hope that Members of the Committee will still prefer the words as originally drafted by the right hon. Gentleman rather than the words of the amateur draftsmen who-move the Amendment.

Mr. Turton: Surely, this is purely a drafting Amendment, and I ask the Committee to accept it on that ground. If we had a general resolution saying that all houses should be built by private enterprise, no one would be more unhappy than the right hon. Gentleman

the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood).

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 125; Noes, 208.

Division No. 116.]
AYES.
[6.57 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Hardie, Agnes
Pritt, D. N.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Adamson, W. M.
Hayday, A,
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ridley, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ritson, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Barr, J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Holdsworth, H.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Benson, G.
Hollins, A.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bevan, A.
Hopkin, D.
Sexton, T. M.


Bromfield, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Shinwell, E.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Silkin, L.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Burke, W. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cape, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Charleton, H. C.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Chater, D.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lathan, G.
Stephen, C.


Cocks, F. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cove, W. G.
Leach, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
Leslie, J. R.
Thorne, W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tomlinson, G.


Day, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Viant, S. P.


Dobbie, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Walker, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacLaren, A.
Watkins, F. C.


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Marshall, F.
Westwood, J.


Foot, D. M.
Maxton, J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Frankel, D.
Messer, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gardner, B. W.
Montague, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Muff, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Parker, J
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Grenfell, D. R.
Parkinson, J. A.



Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Pearson, A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Price, M. P.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Cox, H. B. Trevor


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Craven-Ellis, W.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Bull, B. B.
Critchley, A.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Burton, Col. H. W.
Croft, Brig.-Gen, Sir H. Page


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Butler, R. A.
Crooke, Sir J. S.


Apsley, Lord
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Carver, Major W. H.
Cross, R. H.


Assheton, R.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Crossley, A. C.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Crowder, J. F. E.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Cruddas, Col. B.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Davies, C. (Montgomery)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Channon, H.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Dawson, Sir P.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
De Chair, S. S.


Beechman, N. A.
Christie, J. A.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Doland, G. F.


Bernays, R. H.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Clany, Sir Reginald
Dugdate, Captain T. L.


Blair, Sir R.
Colfox, Major W. P.
Eastwood, J. F.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Eckersley, P. T.


Bossom, A. C.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E


Boulton, W. W.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Ellis, Sir G.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Entwistle, Sir C F.




Errington, E.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Rots)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A


Fildes, Sir H.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Findlay, Sir E.
McKie, J. H.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Fleming, E. L.
Macquisten, F. A.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Magnay, T.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Furness, S. N.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Spens, W. P.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Markham, S. F.
Storey, S.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Marsden, Commander A.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.
Sutcliffe, H.


Harbord, A.
Morgan, R. H.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Tate, Mavis C.


Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Munro, P.
Touche, G. C.


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Nail, Sir J.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Hepworth, J.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Turton, R. H.


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Wakefield, W. W.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Higgs, W. F.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Pilkington, R.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Holmes, J. S.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Procter, Major H. A.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Horsbrugh, Florence
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ramsbotham, H.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Keeling, E. H.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Rosa Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Rowlands, G.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Leech, Sir J. W.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Wragg, H.


Lees-Jones, J.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Wright, Wing-commander J. A. C.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Lavy, T.
Salmon, Sir I.



Lewis, O.
Samuel, M. R. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Liddall, W. S.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Mr. Grimston and Major Sir


Lipson, D. L.
Savery, Sir Servington
James Edmondson.


Lloyd, G. W.
Selley, H. R.

Proposed words there inserted.

The Deputy-Chairman (Captain Bourne): The next two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart)—in page 5, line 10, leave out "of the district," and in line 11, after "person," insert "or body"—are both outside the scope of the Financial Resolution.

Amendment made: In page 5, line 30, leave out "district council," and insert "council of the county district."— [Brigadier-General Brown.]

Consequential Amendments made:

7.6 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I beg to move, in page 6, line 11, at the end, to add:
(2) Where a house provided under arrangements made in pursuance of this Section is let together with other land at a single rent, such proportion of that rent as the council of the county district may determine shall be deemed, for the purpose of paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of this Section, to be the rent at which the house is let.

This Amendment deals with a small point raised in the report of the advisory sub-committee. I do not suggest that it may have wide implications, but it may affect some people. Under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act there have been cases in which a house was improved and then let along with land, and the rent of the land and the house together were really a means of avoiding the restriction of the net rent laid down by the Council, that is to say, the joint rents were in exercise of what they should have been. The Amendment suggests that, where that may occur again, it shall be within the power of the district council to make a fair distribution of the rent as between the land and the house and so prevent the owner from allocating to the land an amount that is unreasonable, thereby disguising the increased rent of the house. I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for some advice I was given and, if he could explain a little further where a garden ends and a piece of land


begins, I should be grateful. I understand that the definition of a house includes the garden, and in urban circumstances that does not raise difficulties, but in the country district, where gardens may be larger and may very easily become piece of land, I wonder just where the distinction is drawn. My Amendment will not affect a garden in any way. If I understand aright, the rent that is going to be fixed will include the garden, whatever that means. The Amendment is intended to deal only with land which is something more than a garden.

Mr. Bernays: In regard to the hon. Member's question, I must ask his indulgence and say that I will investigate and let him know. I hope that before the Report stage he will have had a satisfactory answer. With regard to the general Amendment, I am glad to be in a position to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

7.11 p.m.

Mr. Ede: We made it quite clear on the Second Reading that we very much object to this possible extension of the tied cottage system and this method of subsidising wages and continuing very unsatisfactory conditions in rural areas. Our objections to the Clause have not been reduced by the Amendment that was made to the first line, whereby this will now be applicable not merely to rural districts but to cottages for the agricultural population in non-county boroughs and urban districts. The proposals, as we see them, invite rural district councils, especially in those areas where they have not been hitherto very diligent in their work, to neglect their duty and to push it off on to the shoulders of landowners and others.

Brigadier-General Brown: It will provide houses.

Mr. Ede: I very much doubt if it will provide as many houses as would have been provided had the duty been left simply on the shoulders of the rural district councils. The only thing that the hon. and gallant Gentleman can really mean is that there are rural district councils which do not intend to carry out the Bill.

Brigadier-General Brown: Many rural district councils have not the money to do these things. If they can get landowners to give them something for nothing it seems absurd to prevent it.

Mr. Ede: I never expect anyone to give me something for nothing, least of all do I expect a landowner to give a rural or any other council something for nothing.

Brigadier-General Brown: My point is that the ratepayers get something for nothing.

Mr. Ede: I very much doubt whether they will. In any event, I share the views held by the Members of my party that the fewer people living in houses that go with their job the better. That is the chief reason why we oppose the Clause. We believe it would be a very great deal better for the rural economy of the country if fewer people lived in tied cottages, and to extend the principle as the result of a subsidy from Imperial funds in our view is very wrong. I hope the Committee will not accept the Clause. The views against it were explained very fully on the Second Reading by my right hon. Friend and others, and we intend to proceed to a Division to mark our disapproval of the methods proposed.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. De Chair: The remarks of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) may be very illuminating, but they do not confirm the Minister's idea of the operation of the Clause as expressed by him in answer to an interjection on the Financial Resolution. I asked:
Why is it necessary to make the grant conditional upon the council's sanction, since the council will not contribute anything to it? It is conceivable that because of sheer prejudice against private enterprise, some member of a council might try to obstruct the building of houses in this way. Would it not be possible to make it a question purely for the Ministry?
The Minister replied:
That can be considered when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill. One of the reasons which has actuated us in including the provision concerning the sanction of the council is that the local authorities are responsible for the housing conditions in their areas, and therefore they should be in a position to survey the needs of their areas and to see what is required. Hon. Members opposite will perhaps be able to tell us whether local authorities will adopt an attitude of that kind and simply because they object to private enterprise, ignore the needs of the people. If they did so, it would be


very unfair. The question whether, Parliament having passed this proposal, local authorities might endeavour to avoid the law and say that because they do not like private enterprise they will not give active co-operation, is one that I shall have to consider, but it can be dealt with when we reach the Committee stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1938; col. 2125, Vol. 331.]
Unfortunately, owing to the drafting of the Financial Resolution, I understand that the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), which would have provided for an appeal to the Minister, is not in order.

The Deputy-Chairman: On the Motion, "That the Clause stand part," the hon. Member cannot discuss an Amendment which was not selected because it was out of order.

Mr. De Chair: What I am pointing out is that in consequence of that Amendment being ruled out of order, the Minister has not been able to fulfil the pledge that he gave in the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution. If the Financial Resolution has been drafted so badly that the Minister cannot go back on it, it is very unfortunate, and I trust the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to explain the position and tell us whether or not the Government stand by the promise made in answer to my interjection.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Price: I do not think that hon. Members opposite realise the very strong feeling that there is on these benches in regard to this Clause. We feel that where private enterprise has failed to provide the necessary houses for the rural population, it is clearly a case where the public authority should intervene and provide them. Hon. Members opposite seem to want to have the best of both worlds. They want to allow private enterprise to remain in possession of the new houses and at the same time to get assistance out of taxpayers' money. That is an extraordinarily dangerous principle, and one which the Committee ought to reject. We on these benches take the greatest exception to it.
The hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier - General Brown) seems to think that this Clause is necessary in order to assist local authorities who are very poor and who, if they attempted to build houses under Clause 2, Would bring about a considerable rise

in the rates. That, surely, is an argument in favour of even better and more generous provision from the State for those local authorities which are not able to provide houses, rather than handing over assistance to private enterprise so that they can do what they like with public money. It is an argument for going back to the Housing Act, 1931, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) which was slaughtered in the general economy campaign.
Coming to the Clause itself, the Minister said on the Second Reading that he hoped no one would desire to vote against the Bill on the ground that the new subsidy would be available for agricultural labourers to erect their own houses. He instanced certain districts and mentioned the New Forest, and my own constituency, the Forest of Dean. I am sorry to have to disillusion the Minister, if he thinks that by this means he is going to make a contribution towards rural houses so far as my constituency is concerned. It is true that a large number of persons in the Forest of Dean own their own houses and a very few may be assisted by this Clause, but from my knowledge of those persons they are not agricultural labourers, but miners and other persons engaged in industry. Therefore, this Clause, which is supposed to deal with the rural housing problem, will not deal with it at all so far as my constituency is concerned.
There are in my constituency rural district councils who have reconditioned houses with considerable success, but that is a very different think from saying that under this Clause you are going to provide houses for the countryside. In the rural part of my constituency I do not know of any agricultural labourer receiving from 34s. to 40s. a week who owns his own house. There are some smallholders who own their own houses, and they may possibly benefit, but they are very few. The only way in which the agricultural labourer on his present wages would be able to strike out and build his own house would be if he was lucky enough to win the Irish sweepstake. Therefore, the Government cannot claim to be providing anything reasonable towards solving the housing problem on the countryside by Clause 3. My hon. Friends are, therefore, justified in opposing the Clause.
The Minister said that the Clause would be very useful in providing accommodation for stockmen on isolated farms. I do not see how that applies in my district, but it may be particularly applicable to remote parts of Wales and Scotland. The obvious answer is that if the private owner cannot provide a house for the stockman, the local authority should do it. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the Housing Advisory Committee and quoted from its report to the effect that local authorities will not always be able to erect houses in such a situation. They did not say why, and the Minister has not given any reason. I see no excuse, in the absence of any better reason, why local authorities cannot meet the housing needs of the lonely farms in regard to stockmen's houses. I hope the Committee will agree not to allow the Clause to stand part of the Bill.

7.25 p.m.

Colonel R. S. Clarke: The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said that he did not expect to get anything given to him by the landowners. He said that was his experience of local government. I believe he is a member of the Surrey County Council. I am a member of the East Sussex County Council, and my experience has been totally different from his. I have been constantly surprised at the generosity of landowners in giving pieces of land for road widening and selling sites for hospitals and public buildings at less than the market value. The hon. Member is, I believe, particularly interested in open spaces and will I think, know that the Hailsham planning scheme was made possible only by the generosity of landowners, who allowed their land to be sterilised without any cost to the county council and the rural district council. Such generosity is justification, if justification were needed, apart from the urgent need for houses for agricultural workers, for some help being given to rural landowners to get cottages built. In many directions they are put to considerable expense which they do not get back.
I have been speaking of amenities, and I should like to refer to many cases where landowners would have been very glad to sell part of an estate for building purposes and to use the money in putting farm buildings into good order, but in order not to spoil the countryside they

have deferred doing that because it would have led to ribbon development, and now, under the Ribbon Development Act, they cannot do it. As a result, their property has been depreciated in value.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think we had better keep to the Clause before the Committee.

Colonel Clarke: I was only trying to justify these subsidies being given by stating the fact that rural landowners have in the past done a considerable amount for local government authorities out of their own pockets.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: As a member of the Lancashire County Council I have not been so fortunate as the hon. and gallant Member in finding landowners particularly anxious to give something for nothing. My experience has been that they were very good business men and expected, and invariably received, good value for that which they handed over. Especially has that been so in regard to land required by the county council. The more earnestly it was desired by the county council, the higher has been the price. In regard to the Clause, it seems to me that an additional subsidy is being given to a section of the community which has been pampered in the past. There is a feeling that anything we can do to assist the agricultural labourer, should be done. We on this side of the House are anxious to help the agricultural labourer, but to make provision whereby he will be called upon to live in what, to all intents and purposes, is a tied house, is a questionable advantage to the agricultural labourer.
We have heard something to-day about the agricultural labourer leaving the countryside, and it is now being argued that the reason for his so doing is that the housing accommodation is not satisfactory and that, therefore, if the landowner or the farmer is given a subsidy to enable him to build houses, the agricultural labourer will remain on the land. The fact is that if the agricultural labourer had been treated as he ought to have been treated, he would have been able to pay a rent for the house which people would have been prepared to build, and it seems to me that this is an attempt to retain the agricultural labourer in the very disadvantageous economic position


in which he is to-day. The man with a small wage, living in a decent house that has been provided as the result of a subsidy, will be tied to that house, but his wage will not be improved, and the fact that the only guarantee there is that his economic standard is to be safeguarded is that the wages must be paid under the Agricultural Wages Regulation Act, 1934, does not amount to much.
Everybody who knows anything about the position of the agricultural worker knows that, although he is at an advantage to-day as compared with the period before that Act was passed, yet the wages that are being paid under the wages boards are anything but adequate, and the difficulty of organising the agricultural labourer makes it very difficult for him to obtain what we consider to be a reasonable minimum wage. Therefore we suggest that to attempt to fasten the agricultural labourer on the land by providing him with a tied house is not the way to solve the problem. Rather would it be disadvantageous than advantageous to him, and for that reason we propose to vote against this Clause.

7.32 p.m.

Captain Heilgers: I would remind the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) that whatever the wages of the agricultural worker may be, the tied house is always going to be cheaper for him. I believe that the agricultural worker is provided for adequately under Clause 2 of this Bill. Clause 3 does not deal with the agricultural worker so much; its purpose is not to assist the rural economics of the district, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) put it, but to assist agriculture, and the reason for doing that is that there is in this country a very greatly increased number of livestock at the present time. We have more cows, bullocks, sheep, pigs, and so forth, and all that big increase of stock means that more men are required to look after them, and you must have them living as near as possible to their animals. If they do not, it is a great hardship for them. For that reason, and because this Clause will assist agriculture, I think it ought to be supported to the fullest extent.

7.35 p.m.

Major Mills: A council may arrange for housing accommodation to be "provided

by some person" other than themselves. Does the word "person" include a county council, if the county council already has power to build cottages for members of the agricultural population under some other Act, as, for instance, under Section 12 of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, or Section 12 of the Small Buildings and Allotments Act, 1926? I am not seeking to create a power to build by a county council, but if the power to build already exists, can use be made of this Clause, all necessary consents being given and all conditions being fulfilled? I am sorry the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) has no one in his forest who will benefit under this Bill, because it is not an agricultural population, but I am sure that he will rejoice to know that I have, in the New Forest, many small commoners who have a little bit of land, who make a living out of agriculture with the help of their forest rights, and who often have very old cottages in which they live. I feel sure that many of them will welcome this opportunity of getting a grant from the Government with which to build houses for themselves.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: The hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers) urged the necessity for this Clause because of the increase in the numbers of cattle in this country and because of the necessity for those attending the cattle to live near their animals. That is surely not a justification for handing over to some private individual and giving him each year a subsidy for erecting houses for agricultural workers. That can well be done by the public authorities, and if it be that those rural councils find that it requires a larger authority than themselves, that surely is a matter for the Government to consider. To be handing out this subsidy and putting it into the pockets of those engaged in private enterprise at this time of day is to show that the Government intend to help their friends to add a little more this time to the much that they have been given in the past in other directions.
I hope this Clause will be defeated. Some of us are concerned with agriculture. We are engaged in a large way with it, and I can assure the Committee that we, as a public authority, have hundreds of cattle that our people have to look after, and that we make a success of it, making


great profits each year, and that private enterprise has nothing to do with the rearing and selling of this cattle. I must not develop that point however. We would certainly never dream of handing over to private enterprise the construction of houses for our people in that connection. This is one more example of the attitude of the present Government, who, instead of helping the local councils and the public authorities, are prepared to help the landowners, to whom this Bill will be a godsend.

Mr. Turton: Do I understand from the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) that the Co-operatives are building no houses for their agricultural labourers?

Mr. Kelly: I am not referring to the Co-operatives, and the hon. Member for Thirsk (Mr. Turton), who is very jealous of the profits that the London County Council makes on its farming, knows very well that I was referring to that particular body. The council will build the houses for their own people and will not ask that the landowners of this country should be benefited by public money being put into their pockets.

7.39 p.m.

Sir William Wayland: It is delightful to see the interest which hon. Members opposite are taking in the fate of the agricultural labourer. To mention the very word "landlord" to hon. Members opposite is like hanging a bit of red rag before a bull. Presuming you were to do nothing to help the landlord to restore many of these cottages which are in a bad state of repair, and which he is absolutely unable to repair himself, the local authorities would have to build cottages as they have been built in my district, the rents of which, instead of being 3s. a week, are 7s. 9d. a week. They cannot be let at less than that, so that the local authority will be saving somewhere in the region of 6s. a week through the Government helping the owners of these tied cottages, which are absolutely necessary, with a few shillings a week to restore them to a proper state of repair. So far as Members on this side are concerned, I think we have absolutely knocked the bottom out of any of the so-called arguments of the party opposite.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Bernays: Before I deal with the challenging attack which has been made

on this Clause, I would like to deal with the rather technical point that was put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest (Major Mills). He asked whether the word "person" included county councils; who already have the power to build cottages for members of the agricultural population under some other Acts. The answer, I am advised, is "Yes. A corporate body, including a county council, is covered by the word 'person'." On the other hand, I must add that it would clearly not be right that Exchequer grants should be paid under two different Acts in respect of the same transaction, and in so far as a county council or other authority may be entitled to a grant under some other Act, it would obviously be necessary for my right hon. Friend to impose conditions under Clause 3 of this Bill excluding that case for a grant under the Bill.

Mr. Price: Can the hon. Member say whether the Land Settlement Association will become eligible for a grant?

Mr. Bernays: I think it would, but I would not like to say without further consideration. I am almost sure it would. The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) said that we on this side did not realise the strength of feeling of hon. Members opposite on this Clause. I think we do realise it, but what we find difficult to do is to understand the reason for it. In our judgment the proposal to omit this Clause would gravely impair the value of the Bill and would, to some extent, interfere with the number of houses that might be built and the number of agricultural labourers who might be rehoused. We have the authority of the Housing Advisory Committee, which was not composed of Tory landlords. They were quite emphatic about this point. They said:
In a comparatively small number of cases it may be necessary to build new houses on isolated farms for the accommodation of stock keepers. In view of their situation, such cottages will, we anticipate, only be suitable for the accommodation of the employés of the particular farm on which they are built.
Therefore they envisaged, and we envisage in this Bill, that the number of such cases that will be dealt with will be relatively small, but our point is that it was recommended by the Housing Advisory Committee that in certain cases the local authority would not be able conveniently to undertake the erection of


houses in such a situation to meet this relatively small need.

Mr. Morgan Jones: Has that report been made public?

Mr. Bernays: Yes, it has been out since December. To meet this relatively small need we suggest that a subsidy equal to the Exchequer subsidy which is to be paid to a local authority should be made available for private enterprise. That is the definite recommendation of the rural housing advisory committee. I have been asked why it is necessary to adopt this method in these rare cases. One reason is the distance and isolation of some of these farms. They are far away from the nearest brickworks and the cost of transport is heavy, and there is also the poverty of the rural district council itself. The principle of a subsidy to private enterprise, as hon. Members opposite like to call it is very well established. It occurs not merely in the 1923 Act, the Chamberlain Act, but also in the 1924 Act, the Wheatley Act, for which hon. Members opposite were responsible.
In the 1924 Act Exchequer subsidies were made available through local authorities to bodies or persons who were prepared to build houses subject to special conditions. There is a similar Clause in this Bill. It is difficult to see any difference except that the conditions we lay down are, in our opinion, more stringent than the conditions laid down in the Wheatley Act. The special conditions in the Wheatley Act were that the houses should be let and occupied by tenants who intend to reside therein, and that the rent charged should not exceed the rent charged by the local authority. The rent conditions in the present Bill are substantially stricter than those in the Wheatley Act because they limit the rent which can be charged to the level of agricultural rents. We believe that the present proposals impose stricter rental conditions and will ensure that the houses are for members of the agricultural population and are let at rents appropriate to them. It is indeed difficult to understand the opposition which our proposals have created. We are only doing what hon. Members opposite themselves did in 1924, and the only difference between us, I suggest, is that we are doing it a little more effectively and with more prudence than they did.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: The innocent inability of the Parliamentary Secretary to understand successive speeches which have been made from this side of the Committee can hardly be due to those who have made the speeches, because the case has been put so simply that I should have imagined it was easy for any hon. Member to understand our position. The Bill proposes to allow local authorities in any particular case to transfer the subsidy of £10 per year for 40 years, which makes £400, to any particular farmer or landlord. That will be a very acceptable largesse to farmers who are in distress and to those who are not in distress; and it is done, as far as I can see, without any means test of any kind. It is not a fact that every farmer is on his knees or nearly in the bankruptcy court, or that every landlord is. But no matter what their standard of prosperity may be, they will have the advantage of this £400 through the local authority, and I would point out that they themselves may be members of the local authority which is to transfer the subsidy given under the Bill.
On the Second Reading of the Bill an hon. Member opposite explained just what this financial advantage would mean to him. He said that he employed a number of agricultural labourers, and housed as many of them as he could afford. He did not reveal the extent of his means, and presumably he will not reveal his means either to the local authority. But there was one poor fellow for whom a house could not be provided, and he said that the provisions of the Bill will enable him to build a house for this wandering agricultural labourer. There is to be no standard of need for the farmer or the landowner, and no kind of national control by the Minister or this House over the distribution of public funds by local authorities. I seriously suggest that in the absence of a means test, or even with a means test, it is wrong to hand over public money in this way without any sort of control. I think the Committee should pause as to whether we should allow the control of the distribution of these bounties and subsidies to be in the hands of local authorities to be distributed by farmers and landlords without regard to need, requirements or necessities, and in the absence of any evidence to show that the subsidy is really required.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: Reference has again been made to the Wheatley Act, and I think it is necessary that something should be said about it. It is time that these references stopped. I happened to be an exceptionally close friend of the man who was responsible for the Wheatley Act, and when that Act was being prepared I took a certain part in the preparation of it. I was consulted on many questions. I was a sort of liaison between Mr. Wheatley and the building trade officials. When that Act was being prepared Mr. Wheatley was absolutely opposed to a single penny of public money being handed out to private individuals. But when he came to the later stages of the Bill he was faced with the fact that there was only a small minority behind the Labour Government, and he had to take note of the fact that concessions would have to be made if the Bill was to be got through. The forces arrayed against the Labour Government forced Mr. Wheatley to put this concession in the Act. It represents no principle for which he stood or for which the Labour party stands. It represents the power which existed at that time to force upon Mr. Wheatley and the Labour Government concessions which they would not have considered for a moment if they had had the necessary majority to carry through their own proposals.

If hon. Members will only read the speeches of Mr. Wheatley prior to the Act of 1924 they will find that one thing upon which he was adamant was that no public money should be used for private purposes. You put the agricultural labourer in a very difficult position. No man should be in a tied house; and nothing should be done to encourage the tied-house system. The argument has been used about costs. It is as difficult for a private individual to put up houses in these lonely parts as it is for the local council. The Committee, if it has any regard for the agricultural labourer, if it wants to see him a free man as far as is humanly possible, should not put him in a position where he is under the control of the farmer, with the landlord be-hand the farmer; in a position where with the least excuse they can get rid of him and throw him out of his house. We have seen too much of that already. No public money should go to private individuals and I ask hon. Members, on behalf of the agricultural labourers, apart from any question of a subsidy going to the landlords, to vote against the Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 114.

Division No. 117.]
AYES.
[7.58 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Ellis, Sir G.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Errington, E.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Colfox, Major W. P.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff. S.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Apsley, Lord
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Fildes, Sir H.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M, (Norfolk, N.)
Findlay, Sir E.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Fleming, E. L.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Fox, Sir G. W. G.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Craven-Ellis, W.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Balniel, Lord
Critchley, A.
Furness, S. N.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Crooke, Sir J. S.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Gower, Sir R. V.


Beechman, N. A.
Cross, R. H.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Bernays, R. H.
Crossley, A. C.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Blair, Sir R.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Bossom, A. C.
Davidson, Viscountess
Grimston, R. V.


Boulton, W. W.
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Dawson, Sir P.
Harbord, A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
De Chair, S. S.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Bull, B. B.
Doland, G. F.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Hepworth, J.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Eastwood, J. F.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)


Channon, H.
Eckersley, P. T.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Higgs, W. F.


Christie, J. A.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)




Holdsworth, H.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Holmes, J. S.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Spens, W. P.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Munro, P.
Storey, S.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Nail, Sir J.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Hums, Sir G. H.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M F.


James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Keeling, E. H.
Pilkington, R.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Procter, Major H. A.
Tate, Mavis C.


Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Leesh, Sir J. W.
Ramsbotham, H.
Touche, G. C.


Lees-Jones, J.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Turton, R. H.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Wakefield, W. W.


Levy, T.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Lewis, O.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Liddall, W. S.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Lindsay, K. M.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Warrender, Sir V.


Lipson, D. L.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Lloyd, G. W.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Rowlands, G.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Russell, Sir Alexander
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


McKie, J. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Macquisten, F. A.
Salmon, Sir I.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Magnay, T.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Savery, Sir Servington
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Wragg, H.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Markham, S. F.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.



Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon Sir A. (C'thn's)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Captain


Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Dugdale.


Morgan, R. H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hayday, A.
Price, M. P.


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ridley, G.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ritson, J.


Barr, J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Batey, J.
Hollins, A.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hopkin, D.
Sanders, W. S.


Benson, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sexton, T. M.


Bevan, A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Shinwell, E.


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Silkin, L.


Bromfield, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Simpson, F. B.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Burke, W. A.
Kirby, B. V.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cape, T.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, C.


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Leach, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cocks, F. S.
Lee, F.
Thorne, W.


Cove, W. G.
Leslie, J. R.
Thurtle, E.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Daggar, G.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tomlinson, G.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McEntee, V. La T.
Viant, S. P.


Day, H.
McGhee, H. G.
Walkden, A. G.


Dobbie, W.
MacLaren, A.
Walker, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Maclean, N.
Watkins, F. C.


Ede, J. C.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Marshall, F.
Westwood, J.


Frankel, D.
Maxton, J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Gallacher, W.
Montague, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Muff, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Grenfell, D. R.
Parker, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Groves, T. E.
Parkinson, J. A.



Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pearson, A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, Agnes
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Review of contributions.)

8.7 p.m.

Captain Conant: I beg to move, in page 6, line 26, to leave out "forty-one," and to insert "forty-three."
The two following Amendments in my name on the Order Paper are consequential to this Amendment. The Clause, as drafted at present, provides for the review of contributions every three years, and the Amendment provides for the review at the end of every five years. I think there is a close relationship between the amount of subsidy which is given, the period of time in which it is operative, and the cost of building. There is a danger that if one gives a comparatively generous subsidy for a short period, it may lead to an increase in building costs and so make the building of cheap houses an impossibility. For that reason, I propose that the period of three years, which is the time for which the subsidy is guaranteed, should be extended to five years. If that were done, it would make more certain the supply of cheap houses, which is the purpose of the Bill.

8.9 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: I appreciate my hon. and gallant Friend's motive in moving this Amendment. He said that the question whether we would get cheap houses would depend upon the length of the period before the subsidy was reviewed, but I am afraid that is not the case. In the Bill, I have followed the precedents which were set by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) in what is described in my notes as the Greenwood Act, 1930, and by my distinguished predecessor. In both cases it was thought that the review of the position should be made after a period of three years, and I think that is a reasonable period. Five years is a long way off, which ever way one looks at it. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press his Amendment, but will be content in the knowledge that in three years time we shall all be here in out respective places. I have no doubt that from the point of view of hon. Members opposite, the sooner they can consider this matter again, the better, and from my point of view, I think three years experience will be sufficient.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Greenwood: For once, I am in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman

the Minister of Health, and I hope that my hon. Friends will not think I am unfaithful to them when I say that. As a matter of fact, this Amendment is a purely academic one, since the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health will not be in that position in 1941. In view of the fact that in some respects the subsidies which are to be given will be less advantageous than the subsidies that have been given, it is reasonable, from my point of view, that the period should be kept down. I know the difficulty of rising prices. If the subsidy were established for a long term of years, it might become unjust either for the State or for the local authorities. Prices may rise, and I imagine that His Majesty's Government, after three years of rising prices, would want to increase the subsidy. I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment can have consulted his hon. Friends, and certainly he did not consult hon. Members on this side. I think that the Bill, for what it is worth—and hon. Members know my view—should contain a provision for this review of contributions, and that the review should take place every three years, and not every five years.

Captain Conant: In view of the statement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Local authorities' contributions.)

8.13 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 7, line 18, to leave out "half," and to insert "one-third."
The object of this Amendment, which is on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), who is absent from the House at the moment, is to reduce the rates burden which is on many of the heavily-rated districts in the country. In working-class areas, where housing needs are the greatest, the rates burdens are invariably the heaviest, and to that extent those districts ought not in future to be called upon to bear a heavier burden, in the interests of housing the people, than they are bearing at the present time. From time to time the Treasury has had to help


private enterprise, or society generally, to build houses for workers, and in some cases a heavy contribution has had to be made from the rates. I do not think that should happen any longer, or at least to the extent that is proposed in the Bill. The Amendment, which reduces the contribution from one-half to one-third, seems to me to be a reasonable one, although even one-third of the charges will represent a heavy burden upon the people in districts where large numbers of houses are required and where rateable values are comparatively low. For these reasons, I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to accept the Amendment, for no one knows better than he does what the rates burden means in working-class areas, where the rates are far too heavy and where private enterprise will not build a solitary house. It is left entirely to the local authorities to erect dwellings, and the more they do in that direction, the heavier the burden upon the local people.

8.15 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the Amendment. I would recall to him the fact that a deputation from the county council of Durham some time ago was met by the Parliamentary Secretary. We laid our case before him and he promised to convey the facts to the Minister. Durham is, I think, the most heavily rated county in the country. It certainly will be under the new arrangements with regard to public assistance. It is also the county with the highest rate of overcrowding. Anything that can be done to ease the rate burden in those particularly distressed areas, ought to be taken into serious consideration by the Government at the present time. We have, over and over again, pressed on the Government the fact that in these heavily rated areas the local authorities have to undertake a burden which ought to be placed on the national shoulders. They are sinking under the weight. They suffer from all the drawbacks of poverty in an aggravated form. They have a terrific rate of unemployment and a high rate of tuberculosis requiring sanatorium services and other services; they have a very heavy public assistance rate; and they have also to carry this very heavy burden in respect of overcrowding.
We fear that if the proposed ratio goes through those areas in which the rebuild-

ing of the present overcrowded slums is most urgent will be unable to afford to do the work. Over and over again we have laid this matter before the Minister and he has promised to give it sympathetic consideration. I can tell him, as the deputation from the county of Durham has already told the Parliamentary Secretary, that the situation which will arise under the Bill is viewed with grave concern. Whatever the ratio may be and however fair it may be to the more prosperous Southern counties—a matter which we leave the Minister to decide—for those Northern counties to which I refer, the ratio and the subsidy as proposed in the Bill will not meet the present needs. I hope the Minister will accept this Amendment as cheerfully as he accepted a previous Amendment.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. Jenkins: I, too, hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment. He knows that all kinds of efforts have been made by the Government to mitigate the effect of high rates in those areas which are most heavily rated. Only last year we got a revision of the block grant, which comes into operation as from April of this year and from which some advantages are expected to accrue. But already much of that prospective advantage has been absorbed by the ever-increasing rate burden in these areas. Whatever steps are taken, the rates still increase, or at any rate the steps which have been taken have not proved sufficient to counteract the increase in rates. My own council will gain a substantial advantage as a result of the re-arrangement of the block grants, but if these areas are to bear heavy charges for housebuilding, it means that a number of them will not be able to carry out the work which is absolutely necessary if they are to have reasonable housing conditions.
That statement applies pretty generally to the Special Areas. I think it can be said of a number of them that their housing activities up to date have to a large extent been directed to removing an accumulation of bad houses. Those areas are already bearing substantial burdens, and if the Minister persists in his present attitude, it means that his policy will be a policy of decadence as far as those authorities are concerned. I believe that the Minister is fully conscious of this fact and that he desires to meet


the wishes of hon. Members who are pressing him to meet this difficulty. There is already in these areas an average rate of about £1, which is very substantial when compared with other areas where the rate is about 10s. It may be that those less heavily rated areas will be able to carry out substantial housing programmes, but I assure the Minister, as regards the heavily rated areas, that we have nearly reached the limit of possibility of subsidising anything at all. That fact ought to be recognised by the Government.
Various methods are being employed to draw additional money to those areas, but the real solution has not come yet. Industries have not been located there to the required extent, in order to create new rateable value and enable the authorities to apply some of that increased rateable value to the solution of their housing problem. Instead of that they are faced with an ever-declining rateable value and the problem remains unsolved. In those areas we have hundreds, indeed thousands, of old houses which were built from 150 years to 200 years ago. A large number of them are owned by colliery companies. They were let cheaply before the War. Wherever there has been decontrol recently the rents have jumped up and substantial rents are now being paid for many of those houses. I had the misfortune to live in one of them in my early days and I can say truthfully that they are not fit for habitation and ought to be destroyed. But if, under the provisions of the Bill, we ask the local authorities to destroy such houses, we shall find that they have not the financial means to meet the liability arising from such schemes.
It is all very well to talk in the House of Commons and to produce a Bill and to say that you are going in for a great housing campaign to solve the problem of slumdom and give everybody nice cottages. The Minister must be conscious that we are not going to do anything of the sort by this Bill. The authorities in the heavily-rated areas cannot do the work unless they are met in the way proposed by the Amendment. I ask the Minister to give consideration to the facts which must be obvious to anybody who considers the position. If the right hon. Gentleman does so, and faces the situa-

tion fairly and squarely, he must accept the Amendment.

8.25 p.m.

Miss Ward: Nobody could be more enthusiastic than I am for proceeding effectively, efficiently and quickly with the housing programme, and although I should have liked to have seen greater and quicker progress, I am one of those who are extremely proud that it is the Government of which I have the honour to be one of the back-bench supporters which, by its legislation, has made progress in slum clearance and overcrowding. I assume—and I hope I am right—that in this Bill the special provisions are being continued for financial assistance to slum clearance and overcrowding programmes which were provided in the original Act for meeting the additional charges which would have to come out of the rates in the Special Areas. If I have any grouse against my right hon. Friend, it is that I do not think there has been sufficient publicity of the provisions for providing houses in the Special Areas. In the North-East Coast area—and I presume the same facilities are available for the other areas which are scheduled Special Areas—the local authorities, if they so desire, can have the whole of their housing programmes carried out at the cost of the National Exchequer, with no additional cost to the rates.

Miss Wilkinson: Higher rents.

Miss Ward: The hon. Lady murmurs "higher rents," but I doubt whether she has any justification for making any such statement.

Miss Wilkinson: I do not usually make statements in the House unless I have justification for them. It is a fact that the rents of houses built by the North-Eastern Housing Association at Hebburn, which is the only place in my constituency that has undertaken it, have twice been raised and are now substantially higher than the rents of the houses built by the local authorities. That is my justification.

Miss Ward: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. All I can say is that, as far as the houses built by my local authority, which is on the other side of the water, and which is a moderate council—

Miss Wilkinson: Hebburn is a moderate council with a moderate chairman.

Miss Ward: I am very much obliged to the hon. Lady. It just shows the difficulty of getting into a dispute as between one council and another. All I can say is that, as far as I am aware, there is to be no increase in the rents of the houses built by the North-Eastern Association.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Cyril Entwistle): I would remind the hon. Member that we are now discussing whether the share of a local authority shall be one-third or one-half.

Miss Ward: I listened to the case put forward by hon. Members above the Gangway, and they based their arguments for their Amendment on the case that we were imposing undue burdens on the finances of the Special Areas, and it seemed to me that I might be in order if I asked my right hon. Friend whether the same provisions apply to this Bill, that is to say, whether the whole of the charges can be paid for under the special provisions in the other Measure, in respect of houses built through housing associations. We have in process of being built by the housing association the whole of the houses which are required for slum clearance by the Wallsend authority, comprising some 400 houses, at no cost whatever to the local authority. It has taken rather a long time to get the local authority to accept the offer that was made by my right hon. Friend, and in another area in my Parliamentary Division the local authority has not yet taken advantage of the financial provisions offered.
It is only fair to say that my right hon. Friend has realised the position in the Special Areas and that no Government could have given better and fairer opportunities for the carrying out of housing programmes than the offer to bear the whole of the cost. I am told by my local authority—and I would refer the hon. Lady to this—that the terms which were offered by the North-Eastern Housing Association to the local authority were such that it was impossible for the authority to refuse them. The local authorities have been slow to take advantage of my right hon. Friend's offer, and I only wish that he would use a little additional pressure on some other authorities, because, where the rates have to be increased to meet the cost of housing programmes, they had far better take advantage of the Government's financial

provisions and spend the additional money on extending social services which are much needed. I felt that it was essential that I should rise on this occasion to defend what my right hon. Friend has done, and I hope that in reply to the Amendment he will make such a speech that no local authority will turn down the financial provision which has been offered.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. S. O. Davies: As one who, unfortunately, has a constituency that has had more than half of its working population unemployed from 12 to 14 years, I would be only too pleased to give every opportunity and encouragement to the hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) to come to Merthyr Tydfil and apply the panacea which she has placed before the Committee. I could not allow this Clause to pass without emphasising the appeal that has been made, looking as I do, at what is implied in this Clause from the angle of a constituency such as mine. The local authority there has to build houses because the conditions of such an area have for many years naturally frightened away the speculative builder of houses. I should like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this fact and I am glad to see the Minister of Labour sitting nearby. The Government has already spent considerable sums of money—and I appreciate it—in clearing derelict work sites, and it has made the district more attractive than it used to be. There are, however, circling these old sites, dwelling houses running from 50 to 80 to the acre, built 100 to 150 years ago, which present a spectacle that is the last word in ugliness. That is certainly not conducive to attracting prospective employers to the district. They are houses a large number of which the right hon. Gentleman would, I know, condemn at a glance, and it is left to the local authority to try to provide fresh accommodation for the people who are living in those houses, hundreds of which have been condemned.
I have listened to hon. Members complimenting the Government on what they have done, but Merthyr Tydfil is an area which draws nearly 50 per cent. of its resources from cottage properties rated at under £13 per annum, and I cannot allow this Clause to pass without appealing to the right hon. Gentleman to try


to appreciate the difficulties of that and similar places. The right hon. Gentleman rightly draws our attention to our obligations to house our people under better conditions, but, without wishing to make any party capital out of this, I must tell him that my friends on the borough council of Merthyr Tydfil are really disappointed with this Bill. These old industrial areas, which have, relatively, the heaviest housing problems, are admittedly in an extremely difficult position, because no fresh industries are going there and there are no fresh sources of revenue for the local authorities, and yet the problem devolves upon them of trying to rehouse the people who are living under such poor housing conditions as I have described. Until new industries are established we must continue to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman for a larger measure of consideration. He is anxious that new houses shall be built for these people, but it is becoming more difficult year by year to do it. In South Wales we have had many long years of unemployment, and it is getting more and more difficult to rehouse our people, and I want to emphasise the appeal that the Minister will in some way or another give us more generous treatment, and at least accept the Amendment,

8.39 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I wish to support the Amendment—although it was standing in my name I was, unfortunately, not able to be present to move it—and to put the case of another special area, namely, London. The Minister of Health is fond of suggesting that London is in a very special position and can bear all sorts of burdens, but I would put it to him that London consists of 28 metropolitan boroughs, each of which is a housing authority, and that a number of those boroughs are undoubtedly very much worse off than many towns in the country. Take the case of Bethnal Green, Southwark or Bermondsey. Rateable values are low and the rates are high, and the housing problem is a very considerable one. I understand that Bermondsey has a housing rate of something like 6d. in the £. When the Minister talks of London being a prosperous area he should remember that London is not one area but 28 areas in the matter of housing activities. This Clause alters the basis of the relationship of the Exchequer subsidy to the local authority subsidy, to

the detriment of local authorities. Ever since 1930 the proportion of Exchequer subsidy to local authority subsidy has been as four and half to one. For dwellings, particularly on sites costing more than £1,500 an acre, which is the case in practically all urban districts, the Exchequer contribution has been—on the basis of five persons per dwelling—£17 10s. per dwelling and the rate contribution has been £3 15s., which is roughly as four and a half to one.
Then came the Act of 1935, under which any dwellings put up for the purpose of abating overcrowding were provided with an Exchequer subsidy, and the local authority had to make a contribution amounting to one-half of the Exchequer subsidy. We on this side protested against that but nevertheless, taking the two susbsidies together and on the assumption—it is undoubtedly a fact in most places—that the number of dwellings required to rehouse persons displaced from slum areas is about twice the number rquired for the abatement of overcrowding, the existing proportion of Exchequer subsidy to rate contribution is as three to one. The purpose of this Amendment is to ask the Minister to retain that relationship between the Exchequer contribution and the rate contribution. If the Amendment is accepted, instead of the rate contribution being £2 15s. it will be, as stated in the second Amendment, which is consequential on this one, £1 16s. 8d.
I realise that the answer which will be given to this Amendment is that if it were acceepted the aggregate contribution of the Exchequer and the rates would be reduced, and that places me in some difficulty, because our real purpose is not to reduce the rate contribution but to increase the Exchequer contribution, and I should not be strictly in order in moving an Amendment of that sort. However, I want to put on record the fact that the local authorities are being badly treated by having the proportion which they are required to contribute towards the deficiency on housing increased from an average of one-third to one-half. Undoubtedly the effect of that in many cases will be a slowing down in the operations of local authorities or, alternatively, there will be an increase in the rates. I am not in a position to argue that the Exchequer contribution should be in-


creased, I wish I were, because I think there is a perfect case for it, and the only thing that is open to me is to plead that the existing proportions between the Exchequer contribution and the rate contribution should be maintained, and for that reason I hope the Amendment may be accepted.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I support the Amendment. I come from another distressed area, although it is not looked upon as one, and that is the County of Lancashire. There are 95 separate housing authorities under the Lancashire County Council and most of them will be called upon to build houses under the new regulations. I am anxious to help the Minister to achieve what it has been said he is out to achieve—a record during his term of office in the number of houses built. I should be happy to help him, not because he is the present Minister, but because I am interested in the people who will occupy the houses. I am just a little afraid that if the conditions remain as they now are in the Bill, the Minister's desire to create a record will pass into the category of the Private Member's Bill which was introduced yesterday for Scotland, and be among the still-births. The reason is that all over the County of Lancashire there is a rising rate demand for things other than houses. On Thursday next we shall be faced with an increase of 1s. 3d. in the £, the highest increase there has ever been in the history of the County of Lancashire.
Many local authorities who are housing authorities will be utterly unable, faced with this additional burden, to contemplate meeting their obligations under the Bill—and they are real obligations. Faced with an increased demand for housing they will not be able to meet that demand. Rates have been increased mainly because of the action of the right hon. Gentleman's Department and of other Departments. Some mention was made of that fact at Question Time. For poor relief and public assistance an increased rate of 4½d. in the £ is being asked. What does that mean? It means that conditions are so bad and are worsening to such an extent in Lancashire that the requirements of the people under this Bill will not be met by reason of the calls made upon local authorities from other

directions. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to achieve his object in having houses built, there is one way only in which it can be done, and that is by reducing the burdens upon local authorities and enabling them to carry on without the disadvantages which they now have. This is an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to show that he is anxious that the local authorities should get on with their work, and the right hon. Gentleman should make it possible for them to do so.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. Dunn: I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment. I am trying to help him and the local authorities who are dealing with the housing problems of their districts. I have often been pressed by hon. Members on this side of the House and who come from what are known as the Special Areas. Fortunately or unfortunately I come from an area which has not a classification of that kind, although I would be prepared to agree that there is a considerable measure of distress operating in the district, particularly noticeable when one comes closely into relation with the working conditions which have existed in that part of the country for a long period.
I am anxious that the Minister should look at the housing problem in relation to the general rating problem in the counties, and particularly the counties of the North. My experience will be similar to that of the hon. Member who has just spoken. When we in the North examine the rate burden, which affects the rent of the houses, and we compare the North of England with the South, we find that we are in an unenviable position. Taking the county from which I come with the local authority of which I happen to be a member, the combined rate works out at the present time to 21s. in the £. If local authorities are to be called upon to deal with their housing problems—this statement applies to the whole of my constituency—I think I should be right in saying that the combined rate would be in the region of 20s. in the £ for the whole of the constituency.
The local authorities have been progressively concerned since the immediate post-war years with dealing with their slum problems and in building hundreds of houses to deal effectively, in advance of this legislation, with their problems of


overcrowding and slum clearance. I heard an hon. Friend talking of the rate-in-aid of housing in some of the London areas, and I understood him to say that the rate was 6d. in the £. If that is the measure of the rate contribution that has to be borne by prosperous London, we must compare it with 1s., 1s. 8d., and in some cases 1s. 9d. and 2s. in the £, with which the industrial poverty-stricken and hard-pressed areas of the North have to contend. There is a real case that even the areas not described as distressed put forward when they ask the Minister of Health to accept the Amendment.
Not only is there the problem of housing conditions, but the general problem of health. I think the right hon. Gentleman knows my views with regard to the problem of rating. I have stated from time to time on the Floor of this House that some measure of financial assistance for local authorities in dealing with their housing problem should not be out of compass with the provisions made by the Ministry of Health and with the desire of the ratepayers generally to assist in the housing problem. I have had many years' experience of local authorities of all kinds, from the parish to the county council, and I express the view, which applies particularly to the north of England, that unless there is a new conception of the measure of the capacity of the ratepayers to bear the burden in those distressed areas, we may have to call a halt in the public health services of the country. It is because I want housing to go along, and because I want the public health services to go along also, that I support the Amendment, hoping that the Minister will accept it and thereby avoid putting an unfair burden on the ratepayers of the districts concerned.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: I support this Amendment, but not because I feel that it is an economic proposition to remove an imposition from the local authority and put it on the taxpayer. That, as I have mentioned previously, is like the Irishman who took four inches off the top of his blanket and stitched it on to the bottom, in the belief that he was making the blanket longer. To relieve the local authorities and put the burden on the Exchequer is not doing much in an economic sense; the public still have to pay.
I support the Amendment because I want to make an appeal to the Minister. He occupies a unique position in the political sphere in which he operates. I see from time to time in the Press that he has been credited with having displayed considerable genius in bringing the forces of the National Government into a well organised state. We remember that, at times when elections are coming along, photographs appear in the Press of the right hon. Gentleman with his well-known smile, and we are invited to look at what the Minister of Health has done, and not to vote for Socialist candidates at the next November election, but to vote for the National Government candidates. The plea that is consistently made on behalf of National Government candidates as against Labour men in our local parliaments is, "Do not vote for the Socialists or the rates will go up." Here we have the organising genius, in the person of the Minister of Health, who will microphone these ideas through the divisions next November, but what is he doing now? He is putting up the rates, not only in this but in other Measures. The rates of the local authorities have become a veritable snowball owing to the new responsibilities which are constantly being passed on to them by the State. I appeal to the Minister as an honest man, because I believe that no one could keep that eternal, childlike, simple smile on his face without being an honest man—a man with an easy conscience. I appeal to him to consider this Amendment. If the Rulings of the Chair were not so strict, there are other lines that I might take on this question but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the Amendment seriously in view of the distress which has already been expressed to him.
We have national taxation running into astronomical figures, and naturally Ministers of all Departments are becoming apprehensive as to how much they can charge to the Exchequer and how much they can place on the local authorities. But, while the charges on the national Exchequer are running sky-high, it is true to say that the liabilities which are being piled upon the local authorities are equally becoming intimidating. Here we have these two horses running neck and neck, and Ministers are becoming apprehensive as to what they shall do. I know that the Minister of Health will now be labouring under that difficulty,


and will not be able to be as liberal to local authorities, in view of the stringency at the Treasury owing to the rearmament policy; but it is equally true to say that in almost every industrial division in Great Britain the rates are almost as great a menace to local authority administration, if not a greater menace than the intimidating influence on the Treasury of a large Budget. We are now asked to reduce the commitments of the local authorities.
I conclude by saying that the Minister, as an honest man, will either have to consider the Amendment which has been placed before him or, when he is asked by the office across the street to get ready propaganda next November, he will not be able to pursue the line that the Socialists put the rates up. In view of the task that is before him next November, it will not be to his advantage, when the public are being asked for their support for National Government candidates, to leave us in a position to point to this and many other things that are done which make it impossible for the rates to come down, but which, on the other hand, put them up. In districts where there is great distress, the Labour men on the councils have a greater need for these services by reason of the higher rate liabilities which are imposed upon them. If Parliament imposes upon us the obligation of increasing the rates, the Government will not be able to come along next November and blame us. We believe in the right hon. Gentleman's integrity, his honesty, his uprightness and disinterestedness. Let him give us a lead by accepting the Amendment in one way or another.

9.2 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: I gladly respond to the appeal which the hon. Gentleman has made to me in such flattering terms. I wish that everyone agreed with him in the attitude he has expressed towards me. I will confine myself, as he has suggested, to the terms of the Amendment, which I do not think has been properly put before the Committee by the hon. Gentleman who is responsible for its appearance on the Paper. What in fact would happen if the Amendment were passed? By the Financial Resolution which has been passed by the House, the Exchequer contributions have been fixed, and no deviation is possible. We have determined,

after considerable debate, what it is that the State shall contribute to this proposal. Now we have an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), asking that a reduction should be made in the rate contribution. If I ever ventured to describe this Amendment from the point of view of the hustings, I should not say that it is an attempt by the Socialist party to reduce the rates; I should say that it is a proposal which would increase the rents.
The logical conclusion, as I think all hon. Members must appreciate, of this Amendment if it were passed, is that, the Exchequer contribution having been fixed, the only consequence of passing an Amendment of this kind to reduce the rates would be from a practical point of view, from my point of view as Minister of Health, and from the point of view of hon. Members interested in their constituences, that rents must be raised. I do not, however, press that upon the Opposition to-night, because I know that what they really desire in moving this Amendment is to raise the question of the rate contribution. I only put that point because it is the logical conclusion of the Amendment on the Paper. I appreciate, because I myself have been in Opposition once or twice—very rarely and for short periods—that this is the only way in which hon. Members can raise the question of the rate contribution, and, therefore, I do not want to make a mere debating point so far as that is concerned.
The hon. Member was, however, under a misapprehension when he said that this was a slap at the Exchequer. This Amendment is not a slap at the Exchequer, but a slap at the tenant. The hon. Gentleman in whose name this Amendment stands is in a very different position, speaking on behalf of a great local authority, from that of the other hon. Member who has expressed—as I think, very naturally and properly—his sense of the burden under which many tenants have suffered. I make no comment on rates in London. I do not want to do anything to encourage the hon. Member to increase still further the rates of London. I was somewhat disturbed at the announcement that I read in the paper this week, and I hope that no words of mine will encourage the hon. Member in that path. But, so far as the rates in London are concerned, hon. Members will perhaps be surprised to know


that the London County Council housing rate is at present 2½d., and that the completion of the slum clearance and overcrowding programme will probably add a further sum of less than 2d.

Mr. Silkin: In addition to the rates levied by the London County Council, each of the London boroughs raises its own housing rate. The right hon. Gentleman ought to add the Metropolitan borough rate to the county council rate to get a true picture.

Sir K. Wood: I will certainly do that, and that will not destroy my argument at all in the comparison I was making between the hon. Gentleman and the other hon. Gentleman who spoke from the point of view of ratepayers up and down the country. I do not want to criticise the London County Council for what they have done in connection with rates, but, on the financial provisions of this Bill in relation to London, there is very little difference between the London County Council and myself. The hon. Gentleman has heard the statements from time to time of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), but, if he wants to look at the real difference between the London County Council and the Ministry of Health on the financial provisions in regard to London, he should look at the report of the finance committee of the London County Council in relation to those provisions. It is true that they state that the council would be placed in a worse position financially, and they complain about the ratio of State contributions being two to one; but when you examine exactly what they further require, what they say is that the subsidy per flat should be increased by £1 a year for 40 years in respect of flats on sites the cost of which (as developed) exceeds £1,500 but does not exceed £10,000, and that higher subsidies should be available for houses as distinct from flats erected on sites the cost of which (as developed) exceeds £1,500 per acre. They also say that dwellings provided for rehousing purposes in connection with slum clearance operations and displacements from unfit houses in redevelopment areas for which tenders are accepted before 1st January, 1939, even though the dwellings are completed after that date, should rank for subsidy at the existing rates.
I am very happy to think that, very largely as a result of negotiations between the London County Council and the officers of my Department, there is really little difference between us on these financial provisions. The London County Council, in fact, are in a very different position from local authorities in other areas about which hon. Members have spoken this evening. I do not think that the London County Council, from the point of view of their own resolution, can say that the Government have not, to a very large extent, met the necessities of London in this connection. It is quite natural that when local authorities go to a Government Department they should press for all they can get. For the representatives of other areas who have spoken to-night, I have a great deal more sympathy. I know, from my own observations, that other areas are in a very difficult position: there is no question of a 2½d, rate for them; and we are endeavouring to meet, by various provisions in the Bill, some of the necessities of their case.
I do not want to go over the whole question of what has been done by recent proposals of the Government and the block grant. A very considerable addition was made in that connection; and I again press on hon. Gentlemen opposite, although I know their difficulties, the value and the merit of the North Eastern Housing Association. I have many times met hon. Members who represent the Special Areas. They do not like the fact that housing has been handed over from the local authorities to the Housing Association. I feel sympathy with them in that respect; but I must say that, however much they feel that, I cannot think how any locality could turn down an offer which is available in no other part of the country by which houses can be provided without any cost to the rates at all. Although I do not want to criticise hon. Members opposite, I think that is an almost impossible position to justify; and, in those circumstances, I suggest, at any rate so far as larger authorities in general are concerned, that there is very little difference between us. This Amendment, obviously, should not be pressed, because it would simply mean increased rents, particularly for those tenants in areas where they are least able to pay increased rents at the present time.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Greenwood: When the right hon. Gentleman is as conciliatory as he has been in his last speech I know that he has got a very bad case. When he pushes out his chest and is truculent, I know that he thinks he has a good one, but when he speaks in that minor key which he has adopted to-night, it is perfectly clear to me that he knows that he has not got a good case. We oppose the right hon. Gentleman not because we wish to create any new rate burden or to increase rents, but in order to raise the issue of the ratio between the contributions of the State and the local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman has been handing out bouquets to the London County Council—I could almost feel my hon. Friend behind me blushing—in trying to defend his position. The truth is that in future, at any rate with regard to slum clearance, and indeed in regard to the whole of his housing, local authorities are to be expected to make a relatively bigger contribution than they did before the Bill was introduced. The relation of the proportion is to be as two to one. Local authorities are to be prepared to supply half as much as the State.
What is the basis? Is it suggested that the resources of local authorities are about half the resources of the State? Is it suggested that the local authorities in this coming year can have a budget of £500,000,000? The State can find the money for what it wants. The Prime Minister has taunted me time and time again in this House for the statement which I made when I said that the people of this country can pay for anything they want. The right hon. Gentleman does not want housing as much as this Government want a Budget of £1,000,000,000, swollen because of rearmament expenditure. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do not you want rearmament?"] I am dealing with the question of relative values and with the relative resources of the State and local authorities. I am saying that in the view of this Government, with its almost unlimited resources, local authorities should carry out a problem which is on their doorstep, not in Whitehall, and contribute half. That is impossible. The responsibilites of local authorities are increasing. A hint has been given—I am sorry my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) is

not here—that the London County Council rate is to be increased by 6d.

Mr. Ede: That is not the only county council rate increase.

Mr. Greenwood: Let it not be thought that it is due to the inefficiency of the Labour government of London, because it is also announced in the Press to-day that the Conservative Lancashire County Council rate is to be increased by 1s. 3½d. in the £. I am not accusing them of anything. I am simply saying that heavier and heavier responsibilities are being thrown upon local authorities. The Government have not even had the courage to take national responsibility for air-raid precautions. Authority after authority in this country is having to face an increasing rate burden, because it feels that it must take all possible steps to defend its ratepayers in the event of air attack.
Reference has been made in many speeches to the distressed areas, and to those areas which are distressed but are not so defined, where, in spite of all that the Government say they have done for the maintenance of the unemployed in these times of increasing unemployment, there is an ever-growing burden for the maintenance of the poor placed on the local authorities. The more rationalisation and mechanisation advance, the more certain it is that people will lose all rights to Unemployment Insurance Benefits, and the more certain it will be that they will have to be cared for in the last resort by the Poor Law and not by the Unemployment Assistance Board. That board to-day is getting rid of its bad debts and pushing them on to the local authorities, and as this process goes on the poorest areas in the country are the areas which are having to carry the heaviest burden. They are the areas where the rateable value is the lowest, where the mass of the people are the poorest, where there are no prosperous suburbs of well-to-do people, and they are the areas where the housing problem, broadly speaking, is most acute. The right hon. Gentleman's great contribution to this problem is to make the local authorities bear half the burden of the State.
The real obstacle to the housing of the people in the rural areas is the rate problem. Rates there are relatively high. The yield of a penny in the £ is almost insignificant, and there are rural areas


in this country where three-quarters of the rateable value is derived from council houses. The case that the right hon. Gentleman has tried to make is not a good one. There is a limit to what you can get out of the ordinary ratepayer, who is a poor person. The rate burden to-day on the great mass of our citizens is relatively heavier than the tax burden is to most of our citizens. Incomplete, inadequate and insufficient as our system of taxation may be, we are working towards a position where the burden will fall on the backs that can bear it best. I am not saying that we have got there, but the rate burden is unfair because it falls most heavily on the poor.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the block grant, but that is no answer. He is doing one of two things. Either he is going to increase the burden on

the backs of the working people or he is going to hold up housing, because if local authorities are going to have to bear a proportionately heavier burden than in the past, they will either shirk their responsibilities or, if they carry them out, they will have to put up the rents of the houses that they build. The right hon. Gentleman's charm of manner and his reluctance to debate the principles that are at stake will not help him. It may well be that he will have his way but the case put by my hon. Friend is unanswerable and I hope he will lead us into the Lobby in support of a principle which we believe to be right.

Question put, "That the word 'half' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 113.

Division No. 118.]
AYES.
[9.27 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Dawson, Sir P.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
De Chair, S. S.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Doland, G. F.
McKie, J. H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Macquisten, F. A.


Apsley, Lord
Duncan, J. A. L,
Magnay, T.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Eckersley, P. T.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Assheton, R.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Atholl, Duchess of
Ellis, Sir G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Fildes, Sir H.
Markham, S. F.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Findlay, Sir E.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Fleming, E. L.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Balniel, Lord
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Moreing, A. C.


Beechman, N. A.
Gledhill, G.
Morgan, R. H.


Bernays, R. H.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Bossom, A. C.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Boulton, W. W.
Grimston, R. V.
Nail, Sir J.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Neven-Spance, Major B. H. H.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Harbord, A.
Pilkington, R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Procter, Major H. A.


Bull, B. B.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ramsbotham, H.


Butcher, H. W.
Hepworth, J.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Cary, R. A.
Higgs, W. F.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Channon, H.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Holmes, J. S.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Christie, J. A.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rowlands, G.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M (Norfolk, N.)
Keeling, E. H.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Critchley, A.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Salmon, Sir I.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Leech, Sir J. W.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Crooke, Sir J. S.
Lees-Jones, J.
Savery, Sir Servington


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Scott, Lord William


Cross, R. H.
Levy, T.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lewis, O.
Smith, Sir R. W, (Aberdeen)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Liddall, W. S.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Lindsay, K. M.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lipson, D. L.
Spens, W. P.




Storey, S.
Turton, R. H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Wakefield, W. W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M F.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Sutcliffe, H.
Warrender, Sir V.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Tasker, Sir R. I.
Waterhouse, Captain C.
Wragg, H.


Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Wayland, Sir W. A
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Titchfield, Marquess of
Wedderburn, H. J. S.



Touche, G. C.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Munro and Mr. Furness.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parkinson, J. A.


Ammon, C. G.
Hardie, Agnes
Pearson, A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Banfield, J. W.
Hayday, A.
Price, M. P.


Barr, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Batey, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ridley, G.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J.


Benson, G.
Holdsworth, H.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Broad, F. A.
Hollins, A.
Sanders, W. S.


Bromfield, W.
Hopkin, D.
Sexton, T. M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Shinwell, E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Silkin, L.


Burke, W. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Cape, T.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Simpson, F. B.


Casslls, T.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cooks, F. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Daggar, G.
Lathan, G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lawson, J. J.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leach, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, F.
Tomlinson, G.


Day, H.
Leslie, J. R.
Viant, S. P.


Dobbie, W.
Logan, D. G.
Walkden, A. G.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Walker, J.


Ede, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McGhee, H. G.
Watson, W. McL.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
MacLaren, A.
Westwood, J.


Foot, D. M.
Maclean, N.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Frankel, D.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gallacher, W.
Marshall, F.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gardner, B. W.
Mathers, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Montague, F.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



Grenfell, D. R.
Muff, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson.


Groves, T. E.
Parker, J.

Amendments made:

In page 7, line 28, leave out "A rural district council," and insert "Any council of a county district."—[Lieut.-Colonel Heneage.]

In line 35, after "pound," insert "a year."

In page 8, line 9, leave out "the Eighth Schedule to," and insert "Section one hundred and fourteen of."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

9.36 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: On the previous Amendment I drew attention to the rate burden in Durham, and the Minister made a somewhat lengthy reply, with which I should like to deal. On this

matter he has dodged the issue of the rate burden for houses in the distressed areas by saying that we in Durham can get over it by means of the North-Eastern Housing Association. He is doing in this Clause what he has done in the country. It is not fair. The North-Eastern Housing Association is a dodge. The Minister attempts to get round the unanswerable case of Durham, of South Wales, of Cumberland and the other distressed areas, by making a special case of Durham. In the propaganda of the Tory party he blames the Socialists for duplicating officials, and then he comes along and in order to meet a difficulty he insists that an entirely separate organisation for housing should be set up. He cuts out entirely the experienced officials of the municipal authorities, and sets up his own authority and makes it an excuse for taking housing


out of the hands of the local authorities and putting it into the hands of private enterprise.
In order to carry out his own political ideas in regard to housing the right hon. Gentleman takes this step and then he says that Durham has no case, because they can have the North Eastern Housing Association. There might be something in that argument if the North Eastern Housing Association had proved a success, but the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Housing Committee of the London County Council really shows that what is being taken off the rates is being put on to the tenant. That is precisely what the Minister has done in the North Eastern Housing Association. I had an argument with the hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) with regard to certain figures. The figures show that the Housing Association has put up houses which are demonstrably inferior to those that have been put up by the local authority—that can be proved by looking at the bricks, the windows and the general finish—and yet there have been two increases of rent above the charges that are made by the local authority. What is that but taking it off the rates and putting it on to the tenant? The Minister has not met and has not even attempted to meet the case of Durham that we put up when dealing with the original Amendment. All that he has done is once again to trot out the Christmas stocking of the North Eastern Housing Association.
I should like to give him some figures in regard to the Urban District Council of Felling in my division, who have told me what this Clause will mean to them. Their additional programme is for 500 houses, which will not qualify under the present subsidy but must come under the new subsidy. If they were getting the present subsidy it would mean £5,242 a year for 40 years, but under the proposed subsidy that figure will be reduced to approximately £2,750, a reduction to this extremely heavily rated area of £2,492 a year. In these areas we have to deal with the Minister of Health in a number of different guises. We deal with him as our loan authority. He has just refused us power to raise a loan for a stretch of road that is a death-trap, where children are being killed month by month as they come out of school. He has refused the loan on the ground that the rates in this

area will not support the necessary increase, and yet by this Clause there will be an additional burden on this heavily rated district of nearly £2,500 a year. Is he going to meet that position by talking about the North Eastern Housing Association? The figures are well known.
If I may say so with due respect to a man whom we recognise as one of the most capable of a not specially good lot, I would say that it is not fair for him to come before the House and attempt to answer our unanswerable case from Durham by making jokes about his predecessor. If he would admit that the case is unanswerable we could respect him. Goering says that you cannot have arms and butter, and if the right hon. Gentleman would say: "You cannot have arms and houses," then we should understand him, but to say that the things of which we complain do not take place, is not worthy of him or of the Committee.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: I do not want to speak of a big industrial area like that of Jarrow, but of the more remote parts of South West Durham. We have there an urban district council, the Barnard Castle Urban District Council, which has so small a rateable value that a penny rate will hardly provide sufficient money to buy a wheelbarrow. I was a member of an urban district council in the South-West of Durham where a penny rate produced only £19. Where you have a district where a penny rate produces anything like that sum it means that the housing problem, however small, is very serious. The Barnard Castle Urban District Council will be entitled to £6 10s. per house, and yet it will be badly hit, according to a reply which I received from the right hon. Gentleman to-day. I was informed that under slum clearance there are 140 houses in the urban district of Barnard Castle which have to be replaced. They have already built 50 of those houses and there are 90 still to be erected. Ninety times £2 15s. is £247 10s., which will make an additional rate of 6d. or 7d. in the £.
In addition to that the same urban district council will have its overcrowding problem to contend with, and once again the rates will be increased. These rates must be borne very largely by small tradespeople in the village. There are only about 3,400 inhabitants altogether,


and the tradespeople are doing badly enough now, but when I tell the Committee that there are 250 people signing on at the Employment Exchange every day in the week, it will be clear that something better ought to have been done for councils like this one. Barnard Castle is a very old-established country place, with very old houses, and one can imagine that if you really did what ought to be done in a place like that, it would cost 1s. 3d. or 1s. 4d. in the pound. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) said something about the North Eastern Housing Association, which is simply an outlet for frozen money. Money is being frozen up in certain parts of the country, with no outlet for investments, and here is the opportunity, but why should the housing be taken out of the hands of the local councils?

Mr. Magnay: Is it not a fact that at South Shields the Labour council have adopted this recommendation and put contracts in the hands of the North Eastern Housing Association?

Mr. Ede: That was done before the Labour party had power, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there was great difficulty in getting the final stages of that arrangement carried through because

of the strength of the feeling on the council.

Mr. Sexton: Has the control of local councils been at fault in the past? Has not praise often been given in this House by Ministers of the Crown for the efficient work done by local councils in housing? Yet public money is to be given to private enterprises such as the North Eastern Housing Association, and there will be competition between their houses and the local council houses. Whose house will it be, supposing the Association gets £200 altogether in public money, at the end of that time? I say the house should belong to the body which provides the money, because at the end of the time, when the house is paid for, if it belongs to the local authority, it will be an asset, because it will help to relieve the rates. Besides that, the fact of this £3 15s. a year being given to the housing association is neutralised by local authorities which are using direct labour, because they are building cheaper and, as the hon. Member for Jarrow said, much superior houses. Therefore, I have great pleasure in voicing my opinion against this Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, no.

Division No. 119.]
AYES.
[9.49 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Christie, J. A.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Colman, N. C. D.
Grimston, R. V.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Conant, Captain R. J. E
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Apsley, Lord
Craven-Ellis, W.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Critchley, A.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Assheton, R.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Harbord, A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Crooke, Sir J. S.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Cross, R. H.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Balniel, Lord
Crowder, J. F. E.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.


Beamish, Rear Admiral T. P. H.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hepworth, J.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm h)
Dawson, Sir P.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)


Beechman, N. A.
De Chair, S. S.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Bernays, R. H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Higgs, W. F.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)


Boulton, W. W.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Eckersley, P. T.
Holmes, J. S.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Ellis, Sir G.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Brown, Brig.-Gen, H. C. (Newbury)
Fildes, Sir H.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Findlay, Sir E.
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Bull, B. B.
Fleming, E. L.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Keeling, E. H.


Butcher, H. W.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Cary, R. A.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Leech, Sir J. W.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Gledhill, G.
Lees-Jones, J.


Channon, H.
Granville, E. L.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Lewis, O.




Liddall, W. S.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Lipson, D. L.
Procter, Major H. A.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Lyons, A. M.
Ramsbotham, H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Sutcliffe, H.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. C.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Titchfield, Marquess of


McKie, J. H.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Touche, G. C.


Magnay, T.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Turton, R. H.


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Wakefield, W. W.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Rowlands, G.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Markham, S. F.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Warrender, Sir V.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Waterhouse. Captain C.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Salmon, Sir I.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Moreing, A. C.
Savery, Sir Servington
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Morgan, R. H.
Scott, Lord William
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Wragg, H.


Nail, Sir J.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crews)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R J.



Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Spens, W. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Peters, Dr. S. J.
Storey, S.
Mr. Munro and Mr. Furness.


Pilkington, R.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adamson, W. M.
Hardie, Agnes
Price, M. P.


Ammon, C. G.
Hayday, A.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ridley, G.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Barr, J.
Holdsworth, H.
Sanders, W. S.


Batey, J.
Hollins, A.
Sexton, T. M.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hopkin, D.
Shinwell, E.


Benson, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Silkin, L.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Silverman, S. S.


Bromfield, W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Burke, W. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cape, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cassells, T.
Kirby, B. V.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cocks, F. S.
Lathan, G.
Thurtle, E.


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Tinker, J. J.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leach, W.
Tomlinson, G.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leslie, J. R.
Walkden, A. G.


Day, H.
Logan, D. G.
Walker, J.


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V. La T,
Watkins, F. C.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.
Watson, W. McL.


Ede, J. C.
MacLaren, A.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maclean, N.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Foot, D. M.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Frankel, D.
Marshall, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gallacher, W.
Montague, F.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Muff, G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.



Grenfell, D. R.
Parker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Parkinson, J. A.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mathers.


Groves, T. E.
Pearson, A.



Question, "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(County council's contributions.)

Amendment made: In page 8, line 28, leave out "rural," and insert "county."—[Brigadier-General Brown.]

Consequential Amendments made.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Transitional provisions.)

10.0 p.m.

Mr. E. Smith: I beg to move, in page 10, line 20, to leave out, "if the Minister thinks fit so to determine."
I am moving this Amendment after a careful examination by several local authorities who are concerned about this aspect of the Bill, and desire that these words should be deleted.

Sir K. Wood: The Amendment is so reasonable that I must accept it.

Mr. Mathers: Is there not some error here? Should not the word "thinks" be altered to the word "is"?

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 10, line 36, after "under," insert "Section one or Section two of."

In line 40, leave out "and by the Eighth Schedule thereto."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell: The Clause deals with the amount which those who are building new houses will gain by the subsidy under the Bill, and I desire to put one point to the Minister. On the Second Reading he dealt with the difference between the subsidy under the old Act and the subsidy as it is proposed under this Bill, and said:
There is at present payable a fixed subsidy of £2 5s. in respect of slum clearance and a possible subsidy but rarely admissible … not exceeding £5 for 20 years in respect of the abatement of overcrowding."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1938; col. 1732, Vol. 331.]
By that I imagine that under the old Act in respect of overcrowding the subsidy is possible but improbable. We have heard about the difficulty of those local authorities who have hurried up with then-overcrowding programme and who are being penalised to a certain extent by having done so, in that they will not rank for the new subsidy under the Bill, while those who have not been so quick in their overcrowding programme will rank for the new subsidy. I appeal to the Minister, if he cannot make the Bill more retrospective, to consider favourably his option to give a subsidy under the old Act. When dealing with local authorities it is our duty to try and encourage them to help the Minister by carrying out the Act to the best of their ability, and our task will not be made any easier if they tell us that because they have hurried up as they were requested to do with their over-

crowding programme they are being penalised for so doing. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that he will consider favourably requests that he should grant a subsidy not exceeding £5 for 20 years under the old Act. In King's Lynn, which I represent, the local authority, just before this Bill was brought forward, undertook a very considerable building programme to rehouse people living in overcrowded conditions. It seems to me that it will be very unfortunate if, because they undertook this programme when they did, in good faith and in order to implement the spirit of the old Act, they are debarred from getting the subsidy when other authorities, which have not been so prompt, are going to get it.

10.6 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: This matter was discussed earlier in the evening. Perhaps my hon. Friend will read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, and, if necessary, have a word with me between now and the Report stage.

Clauses 11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — SCHEDULE.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 13, line 4, after "land," to insert:
(including additional expenses incurred by the local authority in the construction of any special foundations to the building proposed to be erected on the site.
I move this Amendment in order to obtain from the Minister an assurance that the calculation of the value of the site will include any additional expenses incurred by the local authority in the construction of special foundations to make the surface suitable for the erection of buildings. Very often, particularly in large towns, local authorities have to get such sites as are available, and it sometimes happens that special foundations have to be constructed. In London, for instance, we had to have piling to the extent of 50 feet in one case, which was very expensive. I consider that the cost of such piling should be included in the cost of the site. My object is to secure from the Minister an assurance that, in calculating the cost of the site, the cost of special foundations will be included.

10.9 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: The hon. Member has raised a matter which is of importance as far as his local authority is concerned. I will at once say that I shall be prepared to take account of any extra expense incurred on a site in carrying out any necessary piling operations in the foundations. I shall be prepared to include that expense.

Mr. Silkin: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 96.]

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1936, and confirmed

by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, for the amendment of the Chatham Rochester and District Electric Lighting Order, 1890, and for other purposes, which was presented on the 14th day of December, 1937, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1936, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of the burgh of Fort William and part of the county of Inverness, which was presented on the 2nd day of February, 1938, be approved."—[Captain A. Hudson.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Waterhouse.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes after Ten o'Clock.